On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:51:57 +0300, Viesturs Lācis wrote: > 2012/9/1 Dave <[email protected]>: >> On 9/1/2012 3:02 AM, Viesturs Lācis wrote: >>> >>> >>> So the missing piece of the puzzle is the means to control LinuxCNC >>> remotely. And as much as I can think of the required amount of >>> control, it is all there in emcrsh: >>> http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/man/man1/emcrsh.1.html >>> >>> >> >> This makes a lot of sense, but I would also look at using Modbus TCP >> and >> ladder, plus some custom M codes to interlock the machines together >> so >> you can prevent collisions between machines. >> Yes, it gets complicated but that is the nature of the beast. >> > > How do You imagine custom M code can do that? > IMHO there should be some central piece of element, which checks > positions of all machines and then acts (for example, pauses one > machine), when it sees that collision is going to happen...
I am interested in hearing more of what you have in mind. All the ways I have been thinking about this are likely to computationally expensive if done on a moment basis, but I can see it working by defining critical regions and establish semaphores. That would allow autonomy and coordination. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
