On 13 May 2013 23:06, Chris Morley <chrisinnana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The other problem is, as the patch is now if you call T101 it asks for tool > 10001, where it should > ask for tool 1. > I'm sure I can fix that too. As we are not using "registers" in the way that Fanuc do, I can see a good argument for putting the wear offsets in tool numbers 0100, 0200, ….. 9900 It just seems more obvious when looking at the tool edit dialog. I doubt that any G-code uses the G10 L1 P10001 format, so this probably wouldn't break compatibility. We probably also want to look at the future. "wasting" half the available tools to store wear offsets seems daft. I had always assumed that wear offsets belonged to a tool, not in what amounts to a completely separate database. The "Standard Fanuc Way" looks like a ghastly kludge modelled around the Fanuc internal data structure. We really ought to be able to do better, whilst keeping the Tggww format if that is what folk expect. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
