[Emc-developers] Axis Startup

There have been several reports of Axis starting minimized in some Linux distributions. I have recently noticed this behaviour in a distribution with muffin as the window manager. According to this thread

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 13:57:02 andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 18:58, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Wouldn't you be able to reset raw counts on the index edge and count > > index up or down from zero to get the same results > > Rawcounts is useful if the encoder is also being used to

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 18:58, Gene Heskett wrote: > Wouldn't you be able to reset raw counts on the index edge and count > index up or down from zero to get the same results Rawcounts is useful if the encoder is also being used to commutate the motor. (And for certain other applications) --

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 11:08:32 andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 16:09, Jon Elson wrote: > > On 02/04/2020 05:33 AM, andy pugh wrote: > > > Rigid tapping and threading reset at the start of the > > > cycle, so are probably OK. > > > > Ahh, but that led to a bunch of confusion years

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 11:00:58 Jon Elson wrote: > On 02/04/2020 12:14 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Neither do I, even the big cinci's x shouldn't, but I've got an > > encoder on the G0704 that could on a long enough job, the scale in > > low gear is effectively a bit over 14,000/rev in low

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 06:33:05 andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 03:56, Jon Elson wrote: > > I don't know if there's anybody out there with table travel > > that exceeds a 32-bit integer > > encoder count. > > Maybe not a table, but consider the spindle on a hobbing machine, >

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 16:09, Jon Elson wrote: > On 02/04/2020 05:33 AM, andy pugh wrote: > > Rigid tapping and threading reset at the start of the > > cycle, so are probably OK. > Ahh, but that led to a bunch of confusion years ago, when > the 32-bit extended software bits of > the 24-bit

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On 02/04/2020 05:33 AM, andy pugh wrote: Rigid tapping and threading reset at the start of the cycle, so are probably OK. Ahh, but that led to a bunch of confusion years ago, when the 32-bit extended software bits of the 24-bit hardware counter was not properly zeroed out when the index reset

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On 02/04/2020 03:58 AM, andy pugh wrote: On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 04:04, Jon Elson wrote: I think it is better to use uint32_t and uint64_t and-or int32_t and int64_t so that you get the exact same integer length no matter the kernel and libraries. I don't think that there is any point

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On 02/04/2020 12:14 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: Neither do I, even the big cinci's x shouldn't, but I've got an encoder on the G0704 that could on a long enough job, the scale in low gear is effectively a bit over 14,000/rev in low gear. Question is, would I recognize the blip when it did over

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 03:56, Jon Elson wrote: > I don't know if there's anybody out there with table travel > that exceeds a 32-bit integer > encoder count. Maybe not a table, but consider the spindle on a hobbing machine, fitted with an ROD271 18,000 counts per turn encoder running at 3000 rpm

Re: [Emc-developers] 2.9 problem

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 04:04, Jon Elson wrote: > I think it is better to use uint32_t and uint64_t and-or > int32_t and int64_t so that you get the exact same integer > length no matter the kernel and libraries. I don't think that there is any point sign-extending uint32, so the type you want to