On 27 July 2015 at 17:29, Brian <turbo94must...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regardless, the point I would like to address right now is whether it would > be a welcome change or not. Its technical feasibility can be determined > during its implementation. Obviously we want everything to work correctly > and logically.
I think that in this case the backlash feature is where it belongs. motion is a loadable HAL module. It is entirely possible to have configurations that don't use it (I sometimes do exactly that). There probably are things that are in the motion module and shouldn't be, but I don't think that this is one. For other types of backlash comp there are other ways to do it. For example I believe that non-compensated positions are available on other HAL pins, if needed. If you want to create a parallel method of compensation for specific circumstances then feel free, my only objection is that there might be more useful uses for your time. (Removing compensation from motion would break existing configs, and that might be unwelcome) In your particular situation it might be possible to close the loop properly with velocity-mode stepgens and PID, but that is a discussion for a different thread. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
