Integration into ERP systems? Integration into metrology? Machine cell controller? Focus on lights out operation. I know one shop owner that claims most of his operators already run 'lights out'.
Other ideas? Thanks Stuart On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 1:29 PM Stuart Stevenson <stus...@gmail.com> wrote: > What should be the roll of LinuxCNC going forward? > > Regards > Stuart > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 1:18 PM John Dammeyer <jo...@autoartisans.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Jon, >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jon Elson [mailto:el...@pico-systems.com] >> > >> > On 01/23/2020 11:45 PM, John Dammeyer wrote: >> > > I really don't know what is going on under the covers for >> > > either the MESA Ethernet 7i92H or the Ethernet Smooth >> > > Stepper for MACH. But considering the power of the >> > > processors running machines back in the 90's or early >> > > 2000's and that the mechanics for the metal cutting >> > > haven't changed much, my guess is that some 32 bit >> > > processor _not_ running Linux so that the >> > > graphics/USB/etc. doesn't cripple the real time behaviour >> > > will be the solution. >> > You keep going around and around saying that LinuxCNC >> > doesn't work. Thousands of people are using it daily, and >> > know it DOES work! If you want to do software stepping, how >> > about Machinekit on the Beagle Bone, using the PRU >> > to do the step generation? This works amazingly well, and >> > costs about $145 plus keyboard, mouse and LCD screen. >> > Or, you can network into the Beagle and use some other >> > machine for the man-machine interface. >> > >> > Jon >> >> I'm _not_ saying LinuxCNC doesn't work. >> The opposite in fact and I've run the BBB with the Xylotex cape so I can >> attest that it does especially with the dual PRU I/O processors. Even >> posted a youtube video on that. >> >> Where the beagle falls down on the Linux side of things, say compared to >> a Pi or a PC, is the video processing just isn't as good. And it shows >> even when just running normal Linux compared to normal Linux on a Pi. >> >> Where my LinuxCNC box falls apart is with the parallel port for stepping >> with very high latency issues and that one time warning when LinuxCNC >> starts up that I've basically got my motion parameters set too high for the >> system. >> >> The solution is of course the MESA 7 I92H which solves that problem. >> >> Or when I run MACH3 on WIN-XP with the parallel port with a 65KHz clock >> rate. Then that exact same PC doesn't have any high speed step rate >> issues. >> >> Now like the BBB I/O, the PC parallel port is directly coupled to the >> processor motherboard and therefore the processor. That LinuxCNC cannot >> run the same step rates as the WIN-XP system on identical hardware (dual >> boot PC remember) shows that there is some sort of issue with PC hardware >> that LinuxCNC is not able to solve. Might well be video drivers. USB >> drivers. Network Drivers. Might be how it handles the BIOS parameters. >> >> Offload that I/O to a USB/Ethernet smooth stepper for MACH or the MESA >> 7i92H for LinuxCNC and the latency problems (there are others in Windows) >> go away. >> >> And that, I think, is the point that everyone is making. It's not like >> the PC parallel port is used with SPI or I2C on each output pin to expand >> I/O. Some of the LinuxCNC solutions involve plugging a board into the PCI >> bus and using either co-processors or FPGA (which could have a co-processor >> built into them) to handle the heavy lifting. The others involve using >> Ethernet and processing outside the box again. >> >> I agree there are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of LinuxCNC >> systems out there running from the parallel port. And odds are they are >> running micro-steppers that, if they are lucky, require at most 15kHz to >> 18kHz step rates before the stepper motor torque falls off so badly that >> they lock up. So the Parallel port version of LinuxCNC has no issues on >> those systems. >> >> But the latency warning for 50khz step rates for the DC Servos under >> LinuxCNC that doesn't happen on WIN-XP and MACH3 suggests that I've reached >> the upper limit of the LinuxCNC OS and the parallel port with this >> particular configuration. >> >> But as I've been saying, the moment you add some sort of external FPGA or >> processor based external card that offloads the heavy processing for high >> speed encoder/step/SSERIAL etc. then it's not just LinuxCNC anymore but a >> PC dependent on outside hardware. And that's what the subject line and >> discussion was about I thought. If the motion control was offloaded to a >> separate processor then just about any PC remote or right there can load >> G-Code, display tool paths and control the machine. >> >> Without a PCI plug in card. So we really are talking about Ethernet >> Based control; perhaps even WiFi. Now we're back to the question as to why >> should it be LinuxCNC when it could be a dedicated processing I/O module >> with Ethernet connectivity running an RTOS with pre-emptive scheduling. A >> small BoB sized board with a single cable (antenna or Ethernet) out to the >> outside world. And with a clearly documented interface the software that >> connects to this no longer has to run on a particular PC running a >> particular OS. >> >> I hope that clears it up. >> John Dammeyer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Emc-users mailing list >> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users >> > _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
