Integrating QtQuickVcp with LinuxCNC should be very interesting.
I have developed a DRO component for QtQuickVcp with the look and feel
of Gmoccapy.
See my CNC mill project: https://youtu.be/LnJv07yeGt0?t=3m28s
I am using also Gmoccapy for other machines, and would love having one
ported to QtQuickVcp.
Many benefits such as running the GUI on a separate tablet as a cheap
touchscreen solution.
Frederic.
http://cnc.f1oat.org
On 2017-11-27 16:37, Alexander Rössler wrote:
Nicklas Karlsson writes:
Yes. I do not like python and guess C++ execute faster so why not.
From a developers perspective VCPs where completely outdated and not
even close to what modern UI toolkits offer. No developer really want's
to work with tk, we can argue about Gtk2.
I worked with glade and it works rather well although some of widgets
are a little bit limited.
Yeah, widgets technology is great for small desktop UIs. However, I also
seen big UIs where glade in general is bit of a pain.
The more modern Gtk3 UIs also HTML/JS I have heard.
QtQuickVcp comes with 2 reference UIs:
- Cetus: designed as axis replacement:
https://github.com/qtquickvcp/Cetus
Look the same as now so I guess it should work great.
To simplify remote deployment of the UIs one can simply download and run
the "MachinekitClient" (yes, it's Machinekit only right now) and connect
to the machine instance.
This way, it's extremely simple to circumvent the limitations of
embedded computers with weak graphics performance. Use a cheap 100$
tablet as your display and you are fine
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnJv07yeGt0)
The way I am heading.
To support LinuxCNC would be quite simple. The machine/server part is
based on Machinetalk - an open source middleware.
Linuxcnc use NML and I think the server part is in working order but have not had enough
time to figure out how it is with the "axis" user interface, got more hardware
today.
Basically, it would be a matter of "adapting" mkwrapper, mklauncher and
configserver (Python applications) over to LinuxCNC.
?
These are the names of the "server" applications in Machinekit.
To make it simple: It would be possible to add the Machinetalk support
as a separate package. No need to modify the LinuxCNC source code.
HAL Remote - which is useful for custom extensions would require more
effort, since it depends on the haltalk server - which goes deep into
Machinekit.
haltalk, this is between which parrts.
Very well described here:
https://machinekoder.com/machinetalk-explained-part-4-hal-remote/
From the user perspective, I think the split between LinuxCNC and
Machinekit makes absolutely not sense and is very confusing. To make it
simple: Machinekit is focused on Non-CNC and LinxuCNC on CNC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
