On Jul 5 2013 1:45 PM, EBo wrote: > On Jul 5 2013 1:19 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 7/5/2013 1:59 PM, EBo wrote: >>> I've given this a bit of a sit and still have to disagree. Granted >>> the Lasersaur and Makerbot groups/company have not necessarily >>> played nice, but most of the stuff is open source. After letting >>> it settle and giving it a rethink, I guess what you ment by >>> "...minimum barrier for entry" is often the attitude that if it is >>> not open source, it is not worth my time mucking with. So do I >>> take it that you see LinuxCNC's non adoption in the 3D printing >>> world stemming from being open enough? I'm still confused. I know >>> for a fact that until recently it would not run on low end hardware >>> that is good enough to do the job, and is a bloody pain to get up >>> an running by all by the initiated, uber skilled, or those who just >>> use it off the distribution disk without modification. Do not get >>> me wrong, it is MUCH better, but still plug-and-pray. >>> >>> I'm still curious what you mean... >> >> IMHO LinuxCNC being open-source is not enough to get people to >> switch >> from their currently working open-source Arduinos solution. There >> needs to be some other compelling reason to get them to want to >> switch >> to LinuxCNC. >> >> I was simply trying to convey that going to the maker community and >> saying "Use LinuxCNC!!! It's open-source!" isn't going to get a >> lot >> of people interested. >> >> The "pitch" needs to be something more like: >> >> Use LinuxCNC!!! I did and I was able to: >> >> * Program working reverse kinematics for my non-Cartesian 'bot in >> minutes! >> >> * Run my maximum speeds to 1000 mm/s with 10,000 mm/s/s >> acceleration! >> >> * Use nurbs to make prettier printed parts! >> >> ...or whatever. >> >> I think raw performance (step speed and timing quality) and hard >> floating point for reverse kinematics are big things that can help >> motivate people to migrate. I'm sure there are others. > > on this I agree. The typical Arduino motor drivers are good enough > for > many things, but when you get to pushing the limits or weight, speed, > or > smoothness, it is time to step up to LCNC. We could even do a little > demo showing the different between an arduino based stepper motor > controller, and something like LCNC with NURBS for both speed and > smoothness. In fact I have a couple of machines I plan to hack with > the > NURBS FPGA board... > > With LCNC-3.0 I would also like to see if we can add minimization of > jerk (the 4'th order derivative of position, so you end up taking the > derivative of acceleration and smooth it). This is important for > VERY > LARGE machines. I first learned about it from one of the technicians > who help build the VLA, and when you are moving a 3 story tall > antenna > that is something like 25 meters across you cannot drive it without > acceleration, and you will tear up the bearings if you do not > minimize > jerk...
forgot to mention that I do not think that I do not think they should necessairly swap from Arduino and shields without a compelling reason... EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
