Hi Richard, > > Dude, > This is an open technical forum. Please use appropriate respectful language.
sorry, this was not meant to be disrespectful. So Gavin, if you felt offended, please take my apologies. I was just trying to express that this was not meant to be taken too seriously. > > every defect gets respect! ... just because they are a little out of spec > ;) > No, definitely not! Gavin is absolutely right. If an EtherCAT slave does not > conform to specification, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISTRIBUTE it. You as a > customer have the right to request the Certificate of Conformance from a > vendor when buying an EtherCAT device. He must produce a valid, up-to- > date certificate, otherwise he's in breach with the contract he signed with > Beckhoff when obtaining his Vendor ID. It is in the keen interest of Beckhoff > that only conforming slaves are on the market. It is a simple as that. > > So, if it cannot handle SDO's, it is non-conforming and you should not use it! As always there is more one on way to look at it: As a businessman(which I am certainly not) I see an IO-system that is an order of magnitude cheaper than the Beckhoff counterpart. As an engineer I see a slave device that is not conforming to spec so it should obviously not be used to stay out of trouble. As a hacker I see a nice challenge to get this working nonetheless. As a customer I see two Ethernet masters, one is working in a setup, one is not. I certainly will drop the developers at Estun a message that there is a problem with their slave implementation. Regards Dirk -- Etherlab-users mailing list Etherlab-users@etherlab.org https://lists.etherlab.org/mailman/listinfo/etherlab-users
