On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > 2015-03-09 1:11 GMT+02:00 Robert Ellenberg <[email protected]>: > > > Nice catch, Sam! those variables definitely should have been doubles, not > > ints. I'm not sure whether the comparison numbers Andrew posted were for > > the lines or arcs example, but it looks like 2.7 is at least competitive. > > 3:04 is second place on that list! > > > > 3:04 is for P0.1 > But they had 4 units in Mach3, not sure what it actually means > > Sorry, I meant in this list of times:
> KMotionCNC - 2:59 > NCStudio v5.5.60 - 3:12 > EdingCNC - 3:47 > Mach3 - 5:25 > PlanetCNC - 11:24 Which test program was this for? As for "4 units", I think that refers to either machine or trajectory units, so maybe 4mm or 4 in? > Mach3 performs even worse on the arcs he says. > Here's the link for the topic, google translate will help with russian > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=2558 > And I can ask the author something if nesessary. > > It surprises me a little that Mach3 isn't higher on that list. I wonder > > what lookahead setting they were using? > > > > He says Mach3 best performs with these settings > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=38185&mode=view > > Talking about Mach3... interesting trajectory screenshots > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44822&mode=view > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44823&mode=view > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44824&mode=view > This is for acceleration 100, 500 and 1500 mm/s2 respectively > Settings http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44825&mode=view > > And voila, the machining results for the same GCode > Mach3 > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44782&mode=view&mt=1 > and NCStudio > http://www.cnc-club.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=44781&mode=view&mt=1 > > Mach3 is seriously broken according to this... Wow, that surface finish is quite ugly when using those Mach3 settings. It may be that different settings would do a better job (see this forum post <http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php?topic=4113.0> looking into tuning Mach3), but I bet LinuxCNC 2.7 would give better finish and maybe even a shorter run time. I'd love to see a side-by-side with linuxcnc. > > > > @Andrew, I'm taking a look at the current velocity display issue, I think > > it will be a simple fix. > I just pushed a fix to my github repo that may take care of the currentvel issue. When the motion queue was empty, some fields of emcmotStatus weren't being reset to the default values. I think it was difficult to notice on slower machines, because the velocity would change slowly enough that the last value before stopping was quite small. Thanks again for the bug report! Thinking back, I think others have had this issue too, but for some reason I never made the connection as to what was causing it. -Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
