I'd be lost w/o a command line editor. vi may be vile but vim can be
surprising useful. My feeble brain still can't get configurations that
work with a gui type configure. I'll gladly take a framework and
modifiy it to suit my needs. Wish list: smoother motion probably via
sine wave, moderate look a head and a screaming fast rt in a dedicated
rt chip. Properly done the motion module doesn't change much but a lot
of task stuff wrapped around it does and that allow improvements as the
focus of the programmers changes. Just my tuppence devalued by inflation.
Dave
On 12/25/21 1:40 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Friday, December 24, 2021 6:47:33 PM EST John Dammeyer wrote:
I think we perhaps need to take a step back before this turns into a series
of unworkable positions.
[...]
The basic setup screens for LinuxCNC for either parallel port or Peter's
MESA stuff is amazing and simple until you need to step outside the box.
And I think, if I were to summarize this I'd say software needs to be
designed so the command line editor is never ever used. Those two sets of
config screen sets are what have allowed most people to set up LinuxCNC.
Take those away, tell them they have to write the HAL and INI file from
scratch and watch them run, quickly, to alternate systems.
What am I? Cat food? John, that box your are complaining about is one heck of
a big box. I might run the config ONCE when bringing a new machine to life,
from then on anything I do to that machine is done with geany, the text
editor. The ONLY problem I've had is a reticence on the part of the
developers to add a pin or 9 to allow me to fully use a feature I built into
the pi controller on that Sheldon, in a fool proof 100% automatic way.
For instance, I put a pair of $20 mpja encoder dials, 100 ppr quadrature
output gizmos, so I can drive that Sheldon by hand just as if it still had
hand cranks. And they are many many times more convenient to setup a touch off
point than any keyboard or mouse driven method, unlike the keyboard or mice
they seem to talk directly to the hardware, with no lags like the keyboard or
mouse imposes on the accuracy as I can directly dial up a touchoff to within .
0001" or .001mm in metric mode. The machine is not that accurate but the
electronics is.
But one huge usability problem. Using the mouse or keyboard the active
touchoff gets automaticly applied to the last axis you moved. But there were
NO input pins to effect that from my dials. I had the signals available, but
it took me 3 years of intermittent fussing about it because when I'm doing
touchoff's that way, I had to hunt up the mouse, find that teeny little button
in the gui, and manually change it to the axis I ws abut to touch off. If my
touch off was applied to he wrong axis I broke tooling and muttered a lot. And
started all over with the setup. Old habits die, or kill you. I was given the
pins a couple months ago and its many times more useful now, no more messed up
touchoffs. There is a slight lag though, it seems to be activated on the
falling edge of my signal. I can speed that up, just haven't found my round
tuit.
The one size fits all approach you are touting as superior is not, its a very
small box limiting what you can do.
Merry Christmas to all.
Enough rambling for now.
John
I agree
Cheers, Gene Heskett.
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
