jon elson said (although programming a 2" circle with 10,000 linear vectors is, admittedly, a torture test, and not real code I'd want to machine with.)
while this is not what you would like to do this is how all high end commercial cam systems do it . programming in g2 g3 and g 17 , 18 , 19 are archaic and do not fit the conventional real world model of production today . On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Emc-developers mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Emc-developers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Licensing (Jon Elson) > 2. Re: LinuxCNC as a "Brand" (Was Re: Licensing Questionaire) > (andy pugh) > 3. Re: Licensing (Chris Morley) > 4. Re: Licensing (Michael Haberler) > 5. Re: Licensing (Michael Haberler) > 6. Re: LinuxCNC as a "Brand" (Was Re: Licensing Questionaire) > (Matt Shaver) > 7. Re: Licensing (Michael Haberler) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:23:12 -0500 > From: Jon Elson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Licensing > To: EMC developers <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dave wrote: > > > > How about a top ten list of things that need to be fixed/redone, etc?? > I think that Michael has attempted to throw a few things out there but ... > > > OK, one big thing that comes up again and again is high speed > contouring, and > the single-block lookahead. I think Michael Haberler has a handle on this, > and plans something major to make it work better. I hope we can talk to > him at the Fest and get details of how he plans to make it work better. > So far, I have not really understood what he has in mind, and may > completely > misunderstand what he is doing. I even have some tests that show the > shortfall of the current scheme without any high speed moves (although > programming a 2" circle with 10,000 linear vectors is, admittedly, a > torture test, and not real code I'd want to machine with.) > > Another thing that comes up often is proper handling of a dual-motor > gantry. > There are apparently 3 ways to do this now, mostly related to homing. > gantrykins was supposed to solve it, but you shouldn't be able to get it > into joint mode after homing, but it apparently can. (This problem > may also have a perfect solution, and maybe at the Fest somebody > can show me how to do it!) > > These are the two areas I have run into a number of times, and I think > solving them would make LinuxCNC useful in some more applications. > > Jon > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:54:26 +0100 > From: andy pugh <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] LinuxCNC as a "Brand" (Was Re: Licensing > Questionaire) > To: EMC developers <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAN1+YZXzuLXGZVrCtSvBq== > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 10 June 2013 17:10, Jon Elson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > http://www.linuxcnc.org/index.php/english/forum/51-ot-posts/25375-linuxcnc-logo-rights#25375 > > > Hey, I could put that on my web pages! Who created it? Is it OK? > > I think that it was created by rene (of cnc-brussig.de, the web page > looks to be dead, so it may be that he didn't make a success of it). > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS5jOHWw_gA > Is the only live-link I can find. > > The basic image is standard LinuxCNC, he just changed a caption. I > don't know if anyone claims ownership of the "chips" logo. > > -- > atp > If you can't fix it, you don't own it. > http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:57:07 +0000 > From: Chris Morley <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Licensing > To: EMC DEV <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > The licensing issue goes from being an annoyance to a significant > > hindrance if it means LinuxCNC cannot be included in a distribution > > like Debian or Fedora. > > > > - -- > > Charles Steinkuehler > > [email protected] > > Good point. > I see we can easily forget the total impact of the licence issue. > > 1: Copyright protection. > Keeping in mind even if at this moment no one here is willing or able to > fight something like this classic > http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/summary.shtml > We should work towards fixing it so we could in the future. > > 2: Integration of 3rd party libraries. > Without our licence issues figured out it either limits the use of > libraries or we > violate their licence. Seems we already have violated the public domain > agreement > by mistakenly re-licencing some NIST stuff. > > 3. Integration into mainstream distributions. > This stops us from having to build a custom distribution and locking our > selves to > one distribution. It also would broaden our exposure / user / contributor > base. > > 4: Contributor base. > Licence is important to some people. Some won't contribute to a project > that seems > to have a flaky licence policy. > > > Obviously fixing the issue can create problems. > It would also be a good opportunity to cleanup and modularize the code > more as well. > > Chris M > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:23:42 +0200 > From: Michael Haberler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Licensing > To: EMC developers <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Am 10.06.2013 um 18:04 schrieb Jon Elson <[email protected]>: > > > Michael Haberler wrote: > >> > >> > >> dont waste your time on investigating the license status of NML, that's > on the way out anyway > >> > > Right, the next major revision you have been talking about will > > replace that. > > Barring major showstoppers I think 'this year' remains realistic. > > With NML quite a bit of Paul Corner contributed code goes out as well. > > > -m > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:49:12 +0200 > From: Michael Haberler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Licensing > To: EMC developers <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Am 10.06.2013 um 18:23 schrieb Jon Elson <[email protected]>: > > > Dave wrote: > >> > >> How about a top ten list of things that need to be fixed/redone, etc?? > I think that Michael has attempted to throw a few things out there but ... > >> > > OK, one big thing that comes up again and again is high speed > > contouring, and > > the single-block lookahead. I think Michael Haberler has a handle on > this, > > and plans something major to make it work better. > > Note that I'm working the stack bottom up. Dont expect major wisdoms from > me on say a motion-ng any day, its not my area of expertise. > > My office address is still machine room - boiler #2, next to coal bunker ;) > > But to get "what if" process going: there is a HAL extensions already in > place which was primarily intended to cover networking aspects needed to > get rid of NML and its legacy interface into HAL (basically non-blocking, > operating system and environment independent (kernel vs userland) queues). > Those are now named HAL citizens, like comps, pins, signals etc. > Conceptually they are very similar to Unix named pipes. > > They support user process to RT comp message exchange, and vice versa, but > also RT comp to RT comp. This means any HAL component can now pass compound > objects (C structs if you will) as messages around and and any other > component will be able to receive and act upon them (in fact even > end-to-end across architectures because protobuf serialisation and > deserialisation takes care of that). This is different from what we had so > far - the only object which can currently be passed atomically between > components being a scalar value (pin/signal). > > It turns out that this vehicle is also suitable for splitting huge blobs > like motion into smaller ones which can be more easily replaced. For > instance, I would think it is entirely possible to spin out homing into a > component, and have it hook into motion with HAL queues. While in theory > you could do that with HAL pins passing structs of any meaningful size and > member count is so unwieldy and error prone (atomicity property needs > attention) nobody has ever tried to. > > Also, transparent exchange across user/rt boundaries in any combination > becoming possible (user->rt, rt->user, rt->rt) suggests that in the future > we will be much more free in assigning parts of functionality to either > type of component. This might get us out of the corner motion is in (I mean > a ton of code in a single rt comp. and only a small part actually being > rt-critical), and get us more flexibility. > > -m > > > I hope we can talk to > > him at the Fest and get details of how he plans to make it work better. > > So far, I have not really understood what he has in mind, and may > completely > > misunderstand what he is doing. I even have some tests that show the > > shortfall of the current scheme without any high speed moves (although > > programming a 2" circle with 10,000 linear vectors is, admittedly, a > > torture test, and not real code I'd want to machine with.) > > > > Another thing that comes up often is proper handling of a dual-motor > gantry. > > There are apparently 3 ways to do this now, mostly related to homing. > > gantrykins was supposed to solve it, but you shouldn't be able to get it > > into joint mode after homing, but it apparently can. (This problem > > may also have a perfect solution, and maybe at the Fest somebody > > can show me how to do it!) > > > > These are the two areas I have run into a number of times, and I think > > solving them would make LinuxCNC useful in some more applications. > > > > Jon > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > > > Build for Windows Store. > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > > _______________________________________________ > > Emc-developers mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:30:13 -0400 > From: Matt Shaver <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] LinuxCNC as a "Brand" (Was Re: Licensing > Questionaire) > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <20130610133013.0a7da477@Matt> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:54:26 +0100 > andy pugh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The basic image is standard LinuxCNC, he just changed a caption. I > > don't know if anyone claims ownership of the "chips" logo. > > IIRC, "Chips" our mascot, and cousin to > "Tux" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux ) was created by Rab Gordon > ( http://www.rainnea.com/portfo.htm see the bottom of this page ). I > don't know whether we have a license to use this at all, but AFAIK Rab > is a good guy so if we asked, he probably would be generous :) > > Thanks, > Matt > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:08:04 +0200 > From: Michael Haberler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Licensing > To: EMC developers <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Am 10.06.2013 um 16:59 schrieb Dave <[email protected]>: > > > > Michael, what do you mean by "get LinuxCNC into more distributions"? > > Do you mean that getting away from Ubuntu will allow operation on non-PC > > based hardware? > > no - Charles already covered everything there's to say really > > all I'm suggesting is: there need to be no fundamental difference between > installing, say, OpenOffice, and LinuxCNC, without the need to do magic > incantations in /etc/apt/sources.list and then some > > that is huge exposure (read as 'promotion') as it completely drops the bar > to giving LinuxCNC a spin. Right now you better be very determined to try > it out. That hurdle will go away if we manage things right. > > -- > > it somehow looks LinuxCNC is intimately tied to 'Ubuntu', that's just not > the case > > what it is really tied into is the LiveCD, which is a workaround needed > because LinuxCNC never made it _into_ a major distro (as opposed to > _running on_) > > -m > > > ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > > > End of Emc-developers Digest, Vol 86, Issue 23 > ********************************************** > -- We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government." - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, March 9, 2007 jeremy youngs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
