If your needing testers I can attempt to test this on my Hardinge CHNC. All I have to do is to remember to download it in the morning during free time...
JT On 11/16/2016 8:15 AM, dragon wrote: > Below is a link to an email thread where Ben Potter submitted a patch > set to implement g71 into the interpreter in 2012. It was never accepted. > > https://sourceforge.net/p/emc/mailman/emc-users/thread/000601cd831d%24bc81b600%2435852200%24%40org/#msg29723177 > > Andy Pugh has updated the patch set to apply to the 2.8 branch (big > thanks Andy!)... > > https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/tree/BenPotter/G71 > > I would really appreciate some feedback as to what needs done for this > to get accepted. I don't want to spend a bunch of time on it if it isn't > going to go anywhere. It would be great if it can be used as a starting > point to finally get the lathe roughing cycles implemented. > > Thanks, > Todd > > On 11/14/2016 09:48 AM, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 08:20 AM, dragon wrote: >>> That was exactly my plan as well. Use a sub to make it more in line with >>> the way that linuxCNC already does things. >>> >>> There have been a few attempts at g71 in the past, but they were all >>> half-baked from what I could find. None that I found implemented g70. >>> They were also very 'hacky' in the way that they tried to use line >>> numbers. I personally feel that the fix for that is to use an o-sub. >>> >>> The big question is, if it is done as a remap will it get distributed? >> I really like the g-code syntax you (Todd/Dragon and Andy) are talking >> about, using o-subs instead of line numbers for the profile. >> >> I think remap might be a good way to prototype it, and it could be >> distributed (like Sam says) as one of the remap examples. In this >> format it would be useful to anyone who did the work of integrating that >> remap code with their own machine config. >> >> But i think the end goal should be inclusion into the C++ code inside >> the interpreter itself, so that it's available to all users with no >> setup required. >> >> >> This is just one dude's opinion, take it with a grain of salt since it >> didn't come with an offer to help do the work! >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
