> One thing to note - you probably wouldn't want to control the turret > with G-code, even if you could. Changing tools and moving them around > are separate actions, so there's no need for coordinated motion between > the two activities. It just opens up possibilities for errors down the > road. > > - Steve > Steve, Chris et al,
Thanks for the hints. The reason that I first thought of using gcode to control the toolchanger was that it will eventually consist of a turret and a two degree-of-freedom arm, all controlled by three steppers that I _would_ want to move in coordinated motion, just like they were the U,V and W axes. (But not coordinated with, say, X,Y and Z since as you point out tool motion and tool changing are separate.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is the point of using HAL+ClassicLadder to make the toolchange operation itself transparent to the gcode? Then it seems as though what I'm aiming for is being able to use HAL+CL to re-create the functionality of three regular axes. That's the part where things start to get really fuzzy! Given enough i/o pins, it would then seem that the only limit to the number of motors EMC could control would be the ability of stepgen to make pulses fast enough for acceptable speed. Hints greatly appreciated!!! thanks, Pat > Patrick Ferrick > Town of Webb School > Main Street > Old Forge, NY 13420 > > (315) 369-3222 > (315) 369-6216 > .................... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
