[Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello,
One of the things that troubles me is that I am not seeing much work to
make the Linuxcnc project feel like an embedded system.
To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some reason that
someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that is purpose built to
run EMC similar to the way the the folks at MyData made their stuff work?
Is there some reason that the user interfaces do not have the features of
an embedded system included such as a button to shutdown or reboot the
system, or even an embedded mode that makes them take over the whole screen?
For example, Gmoccapy has a feature in the settings to take over the whole
screen, but it is an option that you can get to via the GUI. For this to be
realistic, this option needs to be in a configuration file that you can not
get to via the GUI.
Thank you,
-Neil-
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Dave,
Thank you for the input. I am not aware of many commercial grade machines
that have "apps" to create G-code. I have carefully reviewed many
controllers from many companies such as FANUC, Haas, Toshiba, DynaPath,
DMG, and others, none of the controllers I have looked at use "apps", nor
do they have anything to create G-code. Many have a "conversational"
interface that is really intended to be used in place of G-code, but these
machines I find extremely difficult to program for anything other than the
most basic part. Also, I find it extremely difficult to do anything to
create code directly on the machine. In the shop, it is normally noisy and
distracting to be concentrating on editing code on a machine, that is
something I do back in my office. Also, I find it completely shocking how
many pictures I see of machines with PC style keyboards and mice attached.
In my shop, that would be filled with dirt, coolant and chips in the first
30 seconds! All of my machines use a tempered glass acoustic touch screen,
and I have a minimum of hard buttons, all of which are water tight. I try
to limit my interaction with the machine to selecting which part program I
am going to run and general setup of the machine. Also from my tests, it is
not reasonable to setup a machine interface in a location where it is both
easy to sit at like you would use a desktop computer and make it so that it
is comfortable for the machine operator to use. The two tasks just are not
compatible.
Can you please explain under what situations that a "user" would want to do
something like run "apps" on a machine? (I am not seeing this from your
viewpoint for some reason.) Also, can you explain what you mean by "user"
are you talking about the person that operates the machine, or the person
that does the part programming?
Also, I would like to point out that Gmoccapy has tabs that things can be
embedded in. I have found it very handy to embed a calculator in one tab,
but I have not (yet) found use for anything else.
-Neil-


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Dave Caroline 
wrote:

> Are you forgetting the other apps people use on their machines to
> create the gcode.
> Not something I really want as a user
>
> Dave Caroline
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Dave Caroline]

Are you forgetting the other apps people use on their machines to
create the gcode.
Not something I really want as a user

Dave Caroline

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Dave,
I simply can not afford to have a machine idle while I use an "app" on it.
If it is not running, it is not making money. If I am editing a program,
someone else is using the machine to make things. There are plenty of small
shops and "one man bands" that use a desktop computer for CAD/CAM, and
editing, then they upload the program to a machine to make the part. I, for
one do not like to be sitting in the middle of a workshop in an awkward
position to see a small display mounted to the side of a 5,000 pound
machine to write G-code, when I can do it from the comfort of my desk in my
office.
Also, we are right back to if I am running something like an "app" on the
machine, a keyboard and such is required, and I am not about to put a
keyboard on a machine, the coolant and chips would kill it before there is
time to use it for anything.
I can understand why some hobbyists would want to use the computer on their
machine to do other things than run the machine, but that is not the scope
I am talking about here. Most of the people I have running machines, just
want to load up the fixtures with stock, push the "go" button, and take a
part out. The only time that they end up doing anything else is when they
break something, or change to another part.
By adding "apps" to the machine, it is detracting from its simplicity of
use to the machine operator. More moving parts, more to break.
The big problem I see with the Linuxcnc project is that its maturation into
the real world is limited (more like blocked) by steering from hobbyists.
Under the hood Linuxcnc is a marvel of fantastic software engineering that
is far superior to many professional controllers, and if it was treated as
such would give the mega bucks commercial controllers a big challenge in
the marketplace. All it is going to take is a "big" machine company to
adopt it... This will NOT happen in its current state because it is still
dressed like a toy. There is nothing wrong with this either. If you look at
my original post, what I am getting at is that Linuxcnc needs both. It
needs a toy wrapper for hobbyists, and it needs a tool wrapper for people
that want to use it as a tool. What I am saying is that there seems to be a
push for it to be a toy when under the hood it is far better than most
tools. I am wondering why there is not much (any) push from within to make
a tool out of it while not detracting from its ability to be a toy.
-Neil-


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Dave Caroline 
wrote:

> My main "app" is an editor I sit on the machine and edit the code to
> make the item, others use things such as dxf2gcode.
>
> I am one of many who are one man bands making stuff in various ways on
> various machines, three of mine are Linuxcnc, the hobbing machine has
> a screen to set up gear cutting, the mill has edited gcode which is
> designed at the same time as the fixture is set up, and a lathe
> usually used in mdi mode.
>
> This kind of flexibility is missing on machines made for "operators".
>
> Dave Caroline
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

Neil ,
their are big people as you call it using linuxcnc , and their are some of
us that cater for the Industrial user & big users . ( on a paid basis
unfortunatly  , i may add ) as reconfiguring or designing it's use for
specific machines is no mean task , and yes if we can we do add it back
into the mainstream ,

it's extremely difficult to cater for everyone

As ken states list your requirements and you never know .
it all depends on how far you wish to go , or how committed you are
to needing it .












On 25 December 2015 at 12:34, Kenneth Lerman  wrote:

> The "standard" answer is that if you want it to look more like a commercial
> CNC machine you can do that.
>
> It's simply a matter of programming. 
>
> I suggest that you start by defining the requirements. When I added o-words
> and named parameters to the interpreter I started by defining the
> requirements and discussed possible designs on the list and the wiki. That
> generated some useful feedback.
>
> It might be useful to define the requirements even if you are not a
> programmer. Who knows, you might find someone with similar requirements who
> can do the programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Neil Whelchel 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dave,
> > I simply can not afford to have a machine idle while I use an "app" on
> it.
> > If it is not running, it is not making money. If I am editing a program,
> > someone else is using the machine to make things. There are plenty of
> small
> > shops and "one man bands" that use a desktop computer for CAD/CAM, and
> > editing, then they upload the program to a machine to make the part. I,
> for
> > one do not like to be sitting in the middle of a workshop in an awkward
> > position to see a small display mounted to the side of a 5,000 pound
> > machine to write G-code, when I can do it from the comfort of my desk in
> my
> > office.
> > Also, we are right back to if I am running something like an "app" on the
> > machine, a keyboard and such is required, and I am not about to put a
> > keyboard on a machine, the coolant and chips would kill it before there
> is
> > time to use it for anything.
> > I can understand why some hobbyists would want to use the computer on
> their
> > machine to do other things than run the machine, but that is not the
> scope
> > I am talking about here. Most of the people I have running machines, just
> > want to load up the fixtures with stock, push the "go" button, and take a
> > part out. The only time that they end up doing anything else is when they
> > break something, or change to another part.
> > By adding "apps" to the machine, it is detracting from its simplicity of
> > use to the machine operator. More moving parts, more to break.
> > The big problem I see with the Linuxcnc project is that its maturation
> into
> > the real world is limited (more like blocked) by steering from hobbyists.
> > Under the hood Linuxcnc is a marvel of fantastic software engineering
> that
> > is far superior to many professional controllers, and if it was treated
> as
> > such would give the mega bucks commercial controllers a big challenge in
> > the marketplace. All it is going to take is a "big" machine company to
> > adopt it... This will NOT happen in its current state because it is still
> > dressed like a toy. There is nothing wrong with this either. If you look
> at
> > my original post, what I am getting at is that Linuxcnc needs both. It
> > needs a toy wrapper for hobbyists, and it needs a tool wrapper for people
> > that want to use it as a tool. What I am saying is that there seems to
> be a
> > push for it to be a toy when under the hood it is far better than most
> > tools. I am wondering why there is not much (any) push from within to
> make
> > a tool out of it while not detracting from its ability to be a toy.
> > -Neil-
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Dave Caroline <
> > dave.thearchiv...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > My main "app" is an editor I sit on the machine and edit the code to
> > > make the item, others use things such as dxf2gcode.
> > >
> > > I am one of many who are one man bands making stuff in various ways on
> > > various machines, three of mine are Linuxcnc, the hobbing machine has
> > > a screen to set up gear cutting, the mill has edited gcode which is
> > > designed at the same time as the fixture is set up, and a lathe
> > > usually used in mdi mode.
> > >
> > > This kind of flexibility is missing on machines made for "operators".
> > >
> > > Dave Caroline
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> > > ___
> > > Emc-developers mailing list
> > > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> --
> > 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 04:09:23 Neil Whelchel wrote:

> Hello,
> One of the things that troubles me is that I am not seeing much work
> to make the Linuxcnc project feel like an embedded system.
> To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
> environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some reason
> that someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that is
> purpose built to run EMC similar to the way the the folks at MyData
> made their stuff work? Is there some reason that the user interfaces
> do not have the features of an embedded system included such as a
> button to shutdown or reboot the system, or even an embedded mode that
> makes them take over the whole screen? For example, Gmoccapy has a
> feature in the settings to take over the whole screen, but it is an
> option that you can get to via the GUI. For this to be realistic, this
> option needs to be in a configuration file that you can not get to via
> the GUI.
> Thank you,
> -Neil-

First, Merry Christmas to all.

Second, although my oar to steer this project is toothpick sized, I find 
the idea of LCNC taking over the whole screen quite scary.  After all, 
it is running on your basic PC, and that PC is quite capable of doing 
many other things (like maintain an IRC session to the emc/lcnc groups 
on freenode, browsing the web for tooling etc) things WHILE LinuxCNC is 
running. I may, while the machine is carving mahogany, be writing code 
for the next operation in another workspace.

So to me, to find myself locked out of the machines PC while lcnc is 
active is not a feature I would welcome.

-0.01

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Ken,
I get that, I have already done a bunch of programming in this direction,
the plan is to contribute it. The reason that I started this discussion is
that I am wondering if anyone else is already barking up this tree that I
can join forces with.
At the moment, I have adopted Gmoccapy as a starting point. I am wondering
if it would be agreeable with the maintainers of Gmoccapy to add options to
it to make it more like an embedded interface, or if it makes more sense to
fork it.
-Neil-


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Kenneth Lerman  wrote:

> The "standard" answer is that if you want it to look more like a commercial
> CNC machine you can do that.
>
> It's simply a matter of programming. 
>
> I suggest that you start by defining the requirements. When I added o-words
> and named parameters to the interpreter I started by defining the
> requirements and discussed possible designs on the list and the wiki. That
> generated some useful feedback.
>
> It might be useful to define the requirements even if you are not a
> programmer. Who knows, you might find someone with similar requirements who
> can do the programming.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ken
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

As always Stuart hit the nail .
totally agree , also people dont understand the many thousands of hours
that it must be by now
put in by all concerned , into producing what i concider to be an
outstanding peice of software .

in a lot of cases, as neil suggests as well as others , companys would like
to use linuxcnc , but for the aspect of
configuration , and maintence to suit them . and or having someone to shout
at if it all goes wrong , which they can't do on a forum !
and at the end of the day , the machines need to work , not sit idle fine ,
but how many engineering companys have software people who are also
engineers ( stuart excepted ! )

so they like the idea of having someone else hold their hands , and in most
cases do what they cannot .
i.e programming or gui configuring .







On 25 December 2015 at 16:31, Stuart Stevenson  wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by last week.
> I have known him since 1989.
> He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
> I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from him but no
> machines since I started putting controls on old iron. The Cinci at MPM is
> the used machine I purchased from him.
> I give you that as background.
> In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
> He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
> When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over as this
> information would not result in a machine sale for him.
> Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation and cutter
> compensation and work piece offsets. After all these years he still had to
> ask as there is no way a control you download free can do anything real.
> I said yes and tried to explain to him about the LinuxCNC kinematics I
> wrote to correct the geometry on the Cinci 5 axis. Again, I saw the eyes
> glaze over. How could he make profit on the purchase of an old machine and
> installing a free control even if it was a better than new machine when you
> finished?
> I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the operators will
> use but not tell people they prefer over other control UIs. The UI
> acceptance is critical as the person in control of the purse is not usually
> the one running the machine (in the environment of this conversation). The
> operator must be able to explain the benefits of using the control and
> without a sweet UI the explanation of benefits will never happen.
> The conundrum I see is without the prospect of commercial profit you will
> get no interest in implementation of LinuxCNC in the commercial world no
> matter how much better it is compared to as it is now with the software
> free and the developers giving their time without monetary compensation.
> Several years ago I had a dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the
> conversation I asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a
> control. After they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to
> buy a new machine without a control. I was not in a position to take
> advantage at that time but I believe it could be done today (maybe easier).
> I have considered what it would be like to have a new machine with LinuxCNC
> controlling it at IMTS. That would be expensive and how would I be able to
> recover my expenses? It could easily cost USD50,000.00 to show a machine at
> IMTS. No doubt it would be fun but profitable? Probably not.
> For me that is not a problem as I like it the way it is now.
> You have a problem? Start on the solution. When you come to a hard spot ask
> for help. You will find help to solve your problem. How could it get any
> better?
>
> Embedded would/could be nice.
> Dedicated kernel would/could be nice.
> This seems to be a step closer to proprietary and away from the 'free'
> nature of what we have now. Again I say, I like it the way it is now.
> There are many questions regarding these steps not the least is
> maintenance.
> The developer/releaser of the embedded dedicated kernel would have a
> maintenance obligation at some level. That could be very expensive. I would
> hate to have to pay/back pay the current/prior slate of developers. What a
> contribution has been wrought from them. They somehow justify in their
> lives and I appreciate it.
> thanks
> Stuart
>
> --
> Addressee is the intended audience.
> If you are not the addressee then my consent is not given for you to read
> this email furthermore it is my wish you would close this without saving or
> reading, and cease and desist from saving or opening my private
> correspondence.
> Thank you for honoring my wish.
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 12:13:06 Sarah Armstrong wrote:

> As always Stuart hit the nail .
> totally agree , also people dont understand the many thousands of
> hours that it must be by now
> put in by all concerned , into producing what i concider to be an
> outstanding peice of software .
>
> in a lot of cases, as neil suggests as well as others , companys would
> like to use linuxcnc , but for the aspect of
> configuration , and maintence to suit them . and or having someone to
> shout at if it all goes wrong , which they can't do on a forum !
> and at the end of the day , the machines need to work , not sit idle
> fine , but how many engineering companys have software people who are
> also engineers ( stuart excepted ! )
>
> so they like the idea of having someone else hold their hands , and in
> most cases do what they cannot .
> i.e programming or gui configuring .
>
And that right there says there is a market for such skills. Those who 
have the time should put a 1" in the trade rags and let potential 
clients know you are available.

> On 25 December 2015 at 16:31, Stuart Stevenson  
wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> > I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by last
> > week. I have known him since 1989.
> > He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
> > I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from him
> > but no machines since I started putting controls on old iron. The
> > Cinci at MPM is the used machine I purchased from him.
> > I give you that as background.
> > In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
> > He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
> > When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over as
> > this information would not result in a machine sale for him.
> > Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation and
> > cutter compensation and work piece offsets. After all these years he
> > still had to ask as there is no way a control you download free can
> > do anything real. I said yes and tried to explain to him about the
> > LinuxCNC kinematics I wrote to correct the geometry on the Cinci 5
> > axis. Again, I saw the eyes glaze over. How could he make profit on
> > the purchase of an old machine and installing a free control even if
> > it was a better than new machine when you finished?
> > I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the operators
> > will use but not tell people they prefer over other control UIs. The
> > UI acceptance is critical as the person in control of the purse is
> > not usually the one running the machine (in the environment of this
> > conversation). The operator must be able to explain the benefits of
> > using the control and without a sweet UI the explanation of benefits
> > will never happen. The conundrum I see is without the prospect of
> > commercial profit you will get no interest in implementation of
> > LinuxCNC in the commercial world no matter how much better it is
> > compared to as it is now with the software free and the developers
> > giving their time without monetary compensation. Several years ago I
> > had a dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the conversation
> > I asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a control.
> > After they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to buy
> > a new machine without a control. I was not in a position to take
> > advantage at that time but I believe it could be done today (maybe
> > easier). I have considered what it would be like to have a new
> > machine with LinuxCNC controlling it at IMTS. That would be
> > expensive and how would I be able to recover my expenses? It could
> > easily cost USD50,000.00 to show a machine at IMTS. No doubt it
> > would be fun but profitable? Probably not. For me that is not a
> > problem as I like it the way it is now. You have a problem? Start on
> > the solution. When you come to a hard spot ask for help. You will
> > find help to solve your problem. How could it get any better?
> >
> > Embedded would/could be nice.
> > Dedicated kernel would/could be nice.
> > This seems to be a step closer to proprietary and away from the
> > 'free' nature of what we have now. Again I say, I like it the way it
> > is now. There are many questions regarding these steps not the least
> > is maintenance.
> > The developer/releaser of the embedded dedicated kernel would have a
> > maintenance obligation at some level. That could be very expensive.
> > I would hate to have to pay/back pay the current/prior slate of
> > developers. What a contribution has been wrought from them. They
> > somehow justify in their lives and I appreciate it.
> > thanks
> > Stuart
> >
> > --
> > Addressee is the intended audience.
> > If you are not the addressee then my consent is not given for you to
> > read this email furthermore it is my wish you would close this
> > without saving or reading, and cease and desist from saving or
> > opening 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Andy Pugh]

> On 25 Dec 2015, at 12:22, Neil Whelchel  wrote:
> 
> It
> needs a toy wrapper for hobbyists, and it needs a tool wrapper for people

A typical "Touchy" setup looks a lot like you describe, if the OS can be 
persuaded to open it automatically and fullscreen it. 



--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

[Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Juergen Gnoss]

I think it is entirely up to the integrator how to implement your machine.
LCNC gives you all you need to setup the machine you want.

I have implemented a few machines that run just with start stop and estop 
button as UI.
The g-code comes from SD-Cards and is written in some office.

On machines where I do my parts, I like to have the entire desktop with access 
to apps.
Also the LCNC features, or how it is called yet, is a great stuff going toward 
DMG machines.
DMG machines have macros with UI's where you give some parameters and the macro 
generates the g-code from it, that you can include in your existing program.

Production machines, where an Operator produces just parts in series without a 
need of any 
programming of course is better to have the simplest UI you can get to 
accomplish the task.
That you can do with LCNC, not with any commercial CNC control.

Ju

> --
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:22:39 -0800
> From: Neil Whelchel 
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded
> To: EMC developers 
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Hello Dave,
> I simply can not afford to have a machine idle while I use an "app" on it.
> If it is not running, it is not making money. If I am editing a program,
> someone else is using the machine to make things. There are plenty of small
> shops and "one man bands" that use a desktop computer for CAD/CAM, and
> editing, then they upload the program to a machine to make the part. I, for
> one do not like to be sitting in the middle of a workshop in an awkward
> position to see a small display mounted to the side of a 5,000 pound
> machine to write G-code, when I can do it from the comfort of my desk in my
> office.
> Also, we are right back to if I am running something like an "app" on the
> machine, a keyboard and such is required, and I am not about to put a
> keyboard on a machine, the coolant and chips would kill it before there is
> time to use it for anything.
> I can understand why some hobbyists would want to use the computer on their
> machine to do other things than run the machine, but that is not the scope
> I am talking about here. Most of the people I have running machines, just
> want to load up the fixtures with stock, push the "go" button, and take a
> part out. The only time that they end up doing anything else is when they
> break something, or change to another part.
> By adding "apps" to the machine, it is detracting from its simplicity of
> use to the machine operator. More moving parts, more to break.
> The big problem I see with the Linuxcnc project is that its maturation into
> the real world is limited (more like blocked) by steering from hobbyists.
> Under the hood Linuxcnc is a marvel of fantastic software engineering that
> is far superior to many professional controllers, and if it was treated as
> such would give the mega bucks commercial controllers a big challenge in
> the marketplace. All it is going to take is a "big" machine company to
> adopt it... This will NOT happen in its current state because it is still
> dressed like a toy. There is nothing wrong with this either. If you look at
> my original post, what I am getting at is that Linuxcnc needs both. It
> needs a toy wrapper for hobbyists, and it needs a tool wrapper for people
> that want to use it as a tool. What I am saying is that there seems to be a
> push for it to be a toy when under the hood it is far better than most
> tools. I am wondering why there is not much (any) push from within to make
> a tool out of it while not detracting from its ability to be a toy.
> -Neil-
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Dave Caroline 
> wrote:
> 
> > My main "app" is an editor I sit on the machine and edit the code to
> > make the item, others use things such as dxf2gcode.
> >
> > I am one of many who are one man bands making stuff in various ways on
> > various machines, three of mine are Linuxcnc, the hobbing machine has
> > a screen to set up gear cutting, the mill has edited gcode which is
> > designed at the same time as the fixture is set up, and a lathe
> > usually used in mdi mode.
> >
> > This kind of flexibility is missing on machines made for "operators".
> >
> > Dave Caroline
> >
> >
> > --
> > ___
> > Emc-developers mailing list
> > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> --
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 11:31:11 Stuart Stevenson wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by last
> week. I have known him since 1989.
> He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
> I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from him but
> no machines since I started putting controls on old iron. The Cinci at
> MPM is the used machine I purchased from him.
> I give you that as background.
> In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
> He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
> When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over as
> this information would not result in a machine sale for him.
> Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation and
> cutter compensation and work piece offsets. After all these years he
> still had to ask as there is no way a control you download free can do
> anything real. I said yes and tried to explain to him about the
> LinuxCNC kinematics I wrote to correct the geometry on the Cinci 5
> axis. Again, I saw the eyes glaze over. How could he make profit on
> the purchase of an old machine and installing a free control even if
> it was a better than new machine when you finished?
> I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the operators
> will use but not tell people they prefer over other control UIs. The
> UI acceptance is critical as the person in control of the purse is not
> usually the one running the machine (in the environment of this
> conversation). The operator must be able to explain the benefits of
> using the control and without a sweet UI the explanation of benefits
> will never happen. The conundrum I see is without the prospect of
> commercial profit you will get no interest in implementation of
> LinuxCNC in the commercial world no matter how much better it is
> compared to as it is now with the software free and the developers
> giving their time without monetary compensation. Several years ago I
> had a dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the conversation I
> asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a control. After
> they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to buy a new
> machine without a control. I was not in a position to take advantage
> at that time but I believe it could be done today (maybe easier). I
> have considered what it would be like to have a new machine with
> LinuxCNC controlling it at IMTS. That would be expensive and how would
> I be able to recover my expenses? It could easily cost USD50,000.00 to
> show a machine at IMTS. No doubt it would be fun but profitable?
> Probably not.
> For me that is not a problem as I like it the way it is now.
> You have a problem? Start on the solution. When you come to a hard
> spot ask for help. You will find help to solve your problem. How could
> it get any better?
>
> Embedded would/could be nice.
> Dedicated kernel would/could be nice.
> This seems to be a step closer to proprietary and away from the 'free'
> nature of what we have now. Again I say, I like it the way it is now.
> There are many questions regarding these steps not the least is
> maintenance. The developer/releaser of the embedded dedicated kernel
> would have a maintenance obligation at some level. That could be very
> expensive. I would hate to have to pay/back pay the current/prior
> slate of developers. What a contribution has been wrought from them.
> They somehow justify in their lives and I appreciate it.
> thanks
> Stuart

You said it better than I could Stuart, particularly the bit about trying 
to be proprietary.  It doesn't quite fit the image I/we have. But as 
time allowed by those who are truly "in the know", LinuxCNC could sure 
use some advertising, not paid to the media, but freely downloadable 
from our web site if that wouldn't step on too many toes at Sherline, 
who have gear to sell too.

Like many here, I hate an itch, so I usually scratch it. In my case, the 
quadrature encoder noise filter, which works quite well in practice, 
simply by average summing the last 4 of the encoders values. Detecting 
the edge is a problem, which if we had an edge detector we could use for 
a shift pulse, would be nice.  I can, with some more help from PCW, 
probably come up with a better version.  But as it is, I can use more 
gain in the PID, and achieve a considerably "stiffer" spindle control 
using it.

If there is any interest, I can snip it out into a quasi-self-standing 
set of blocks of hal code and post it on my web page, where those who 
could use it can snarf it for the same cost as LinuxCNC.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

I'm Available !
( glad this is not an open group Gene ) LOL
I'd probably have a queue around the block .


On 25 December 2015 at 18:25, Gene Heskett  wrote:

> On Friday 25 December 2015 12:13:06 Sarah Armstrong wrote:
>
> > As always Stuart hit the nail .
> > totally agree , also people dont understand the many thousands of
> > hours that it must be by now
> > put in by all concerned , into producing what i concider to be an
> > outstanding peice of software .
> >
> > in a lot of cases, as neil suggests as well as others , companys would
> > like to use linuxcnc , but for the aspect of
> > configuration , and maintence to suit them . and or having someone to
> > shout at if it all goes wrong , which they can't do on a forum !
> > and at the end of the day , the machines need to work , not sit idle
> > fine , but how many engineering companys have software people who are
> > also engineers ( stuart excepted ! )
> >
> > so they like the idea of having someone else hold their hands , and in
> > most cases do what they cannot .
> > i.e programming or gui configuring .
> >
> And that right there says there is a market for such skills. Those who
> have the time should put a 1" in the trade rags and let potential
> clients know you are available.
>
> > On 25 December 2015 at 16:31, Stuart Stevenson 
> wrote:
> > > Gentlemen,
> > > I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by last
> > > week. I have known him since 1989.
> > > He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
> > > I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from him
> > > but no machines since I started putting controls on old iron. The
> > > Cinci at MPM is the used machine I purchased from him.
> > > I give you that as background.
> > > In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
> > > He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
> > > When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over as
> > > this information would not result in a machine sale for him.
> > > Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation and
> > > cutter compensation and work piece offsets. After all these years he
> > > still had to ask as there is no way a control you download free can
> > > do anything real. I said yes and tried to explain to him about the
> > > LinuxCNC kinematics I wrote to correct the geometry on the Cinci 5
> > > axis. Again, I saw the eyes glaze over. How could he make profit on
> > > the purchase of an old machine and installing a free control even if
> > > it was a better than new machine when you finished?
> > > I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the operators
> > > will use but not tell people they prefer over other control UIs. The
> > > UI acceptance is critical as the person in control of the purse is
> > > not usually the one running the machine (in the environment of this
> > > conversation). The operator must be able to explain the benefits of
> > > using the control and without a sweet UI the explanation of benefits
> > > will never happen. The conundrum I see is without the prospect of
> > > commercial profit you will get no interest in implementation of
> > > LinuxCNC in the commercial world no matter how much better it is
> > > compared to as it is now with the software free and the developers
> > > giving their time without monetary compensation. Several years ago I
> > > had a dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the conversation
> > > I asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a control.
> > > After they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to buy
> > > a new machine without a control. I was not in a position to take
> > > advantage at that time but I believe it could be done today (maybe
> > > easier). I have considered what it would be like to have a new
> > > machine with LinuxCNC controlling it at IMTS. That would be
> > > expensive and how would I be able to recover my expenses? It could
> > > easily cost USD50,000.00 to show a machine at IMTS. No doubt it
> > > would be fun but profitable? Probably not. For me that is not a
> > > problem as I like it the way it is now. You have a problem? Start on
> > > the solution. When you come to a hard spot ask for help. You will
> > > find help to solve your problem. How could it get any better?
> > >
> > > Embedded would/could be nice.
> > > Dedicated kernel would/could be nice.
> > > This seems to be a step closer to proprietary and away from the
> > > 'free' nature of what we have now. Again I say, I like it the way it
> > > is now. There are many questions regarding these steps not the least
> > > is maintenance.
> > > The developer/releaser of the embedded dedicated kernel would have a
> > > maintenance obligation at some level. That could be very expensive.
> > > I would hate to have to pay/back pay the current/prior slate of
> > > developers. What a contribution has been wrought from them. They
> > > 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Dave Caroline]

My main "app" is an editor I sit on the machine and edit the code to
make the item, others use things such as dxf2gcode.

I am one of many who are one man bands making stuff in various ways on
various machines, three of mine are Linuxcnc, the hobbing machine has
a screen to set up gear cutting, the mill has edited gcode which is
designed at the same time as the fixture is set up, and a lathe
usually used in mdi mode.

This kind of flexibility is missing on machines made for "operators".

Dave Caroline

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Kenneth Lerman]

The "standard" answer is that if you want it to look more like a commercial
CNC machine you can do that.

It's simply a matter of programming. 

I suggest that you start by defining the requirements. When I added o-words
and named parameters to the interpreter I started by defining the
requirements and discussed possible designs on the list and the wiki. That
generated some useful feedback.

It might be useful to define the requirements even if you are not a
programmer. Who knows, you might find someone with similar requirements who
can do the programming.

Regards,

Ken


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Neil Whelchel 
wrote:

> Hello Dave,
> I simply can not afford to have a machine idle while I use an "app" on it.
> If it is not running, it is not making money. If I am editing a program,
> someone else is using the machine to make things. There are plenty of small
> shops and "one man bands" that use a desktop computer for CAD/CAM, and
> editing, then they upload the program to a machine to make the part. I, for
> one do not like to be sitting in the middle of a workshop in an awkward
> position to see a small display mounted to the side of a 5,000 pound
> machine to write G-code, when I can do it from the comfort of my desk in my
> office.
> Also, we are right back to if I am running something like an "app" on the
> machine, a keyboard and such is required, and I am not about to put a
> keyboard on a machine, the coolant and chips would kill it before there is
> time to use it for anything.
> I can understand why some hobbyists would want to use the computer on their
> machine to do other things than run the machine, but that is not the scope
> I am talking about here. Most of the people I have running machines, just
> want to load up the fixtures with stock, push the "go" button, and take a
> part out. The only time that they end up doing anything else is when they
> break something, or change to another part.
> By adding "apps" to the machine, it is detracting from its simplicity of
> use to the machine operator. More moving parts, more to break.
> The big problem I see with the Linuxcnc project is that its maturation into
> the real world is limited (more like blocked) by steering from hobbyists.
> Under the hood Linuxcnc is a marvel of fantastic software engineering that
> is far superior to many professional controllers, and if it was treated as
> such would give the mega bucks commercial controllers a big challenge in
> the marketplace. All it is going to take is a "big" machine company to
> adopt it... This will NOT happen in its current state because it is still
> dressed like a toy. There is nothing wrong with this either. If you look at
> my original post, what I am getting at is that Linuxcnc needs both. It
> needs a toy wrapper for hobbyists, and it needs a tool wrapper for people
> that want to use it as a tool. What I am saying is that there seems to be a
> push for it to be a toy when under the hood it is far better than most
> tools. I am wondering why there is not much (any) push from within to make
> a tool out of it while not detracting from its ability to be a toy.
> -Neil-
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Dave Caroline <
> dave.thearchiv...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > My main "app" is an editor I sit on the machine and edit the code to
> > make the item, others use things such as dxf2gcode.
> >
> > I am one of many who are one man bands making stuff in various ways on
> > various machines, three of mine are Linuxcnc, the hobbing machine has
> > a screen to set up gear cutting, the mill has edited gcode which is
> > designed at the same time as the fixture is set up, and a lathe
> > usually used in mdi mode.
> >
> > This kind of flexibility is missing on machines made for "operators".
> >
> > Dave Caroline
> >
> >
> >
> --
> > ___
> > Emc-developers mailing list
> > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
> >
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 
Kenneth Lerman
55 Main Street
Newtown, CT 06470
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Stuart Stevenson]

Gentlemen,
I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by last week.
I have known him since 1989.
He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from him but no
machines since I started putting controls on old iron. The Cinci at MPM is
the used machine I purchased from him.
I give you that as background.
In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over as this
information would not result in a machine sale for him.
Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation and cutter
compensation and work piece offsets. After all these years he still had to
ask as there is no way a control you download free can do anything real.
I said yes and tried to explain to him about the LinuxCNC kinematics I
wrote to correct the geometry on the Cinci 5 axis. Again, I saw the eyes
glaze over. How could he make profit on the purchase of an old machine and
installing a free control even if it was a better than new machine when you
finished?
I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the operators will
use but not tell people they prefer over other control UIs. The UI
acceptance is critical as the person in control of the purse is not usually
the one running the machine (in the environment of this conversation). The
operator must be able to explain the benefits of using the control and
without a sweet UI the explanation of benefits will never happen.
The conundrum I see is without the prospect of commercial profit you will
get no interest in implementation of LinuxCNC in the commercial world no
matter how much better it is compared to as it is now with the software
free and the developers giving their time without monetary compensation.
Several years ago I had a dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the
conversation I asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a
control. After they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to
buy a new machine without a control. I was not in a position to take
advantage at that time but I believe it could be done today (maybe easier).
I have considered what it would be like to have a new machine with LinuxCNC
controlling it at IMTS. That would be expensive and how would I be able to
recover my expenses? It could easily cost USD50,000.00 to show a machine at
IMTS. No doubt it would be fun but profitable? Probably not.
For me that is not a problem as I like it the way it is now.
You have a problem? Start on the solution. When you come to a hard spot ask
for help. You will find help to solve your problem. How could it get any
better?

Embedded would/could be nice.
Dedicated kernel would/could be nice.
This seems to be a step closer to proprietary and away from the 'free'
nature of what we have now. Again I say, I like it the way it is now.
There are many questions regarding these steps not the least is maintenance.
The developer/releaser of the embedded dedicated kernel would have a
maintenance obligation at some level. That could be very expensive. I would
hate to have to pay/back pay the current/prior slate of developers. What a
contribution has been wrought from them. They somehow justify in their
lives and I appreciate it.
thanks
Stuart

-- 
Addressee is the intended audience.
If you are not the addressee then my consent is not given for you to read
this email furthermore it is my wish you would close this without saving or
reading, and cease and desist from saving or opening my private
correspondence.
Thank you for honoring my wish.
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Brian]

I'll throw my hat in the ring for a more embedded, dedicated 
appearing/functioning interface.  I think such an option would make LCNC a more 
viable option for real, commercial application.

This could be anything from a configuration option or GUI, to a full blown 
dedicated kernel or anything in between. 

It seems to me that Tormach has already started down this path with Path Pilot. 
 Although I have never actually seen it, from what I hear, it makes accessing 
the desktop and other PC functionality not functional or not obvious.

Brian

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 25, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Neil Whelchel  wrote:

> Hello Ken,
> I get that, I have already done a bunch of programming in this direction,
> the plan is to contribute it. The reason that I started this discussion is
> that I am wondering if anyone else is already barking up this tree that I
> can join forces with.
> At the moment, I have adopted Gmoccapy as a starting point. I am wondering
> if it would be agreeable with the maintainers of Gmoccapy to add options to
> it to make it more like an embedded interface, or if it makes more sense to
> fork it.
> -Neil-
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Kenneth Lerman  wrote:
> 
>> The "standard" answer is that if you want it to look more like a commercial
>> CNC machine you can do that.
>> 
>> It's simply a matter of programming. 
>> 
>> I suggest that you start by defining the requirements. When I added o-words
>> and named parameters to the interpreter I started by defining the
>> requirements and discussed possible designs on the list and the wiki. That
>> generated some useful feedback.
>> 
>> It might be useful to define the requirements even if you are not a
>> programmer. Who knows, you might find someone with similar requirements who
>> can do the programming.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Ken
>> 
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello all,
First of all, this is a really fantastic bunch of people here! I can't
think of any other mail list where everyone that has replied so far makes
sense and provides directly useful insight.
I realize that maintaining an embedded OS is not easy, and expensive. I
have been doing this since 1993, and I have focused specifically on the X86
(replaced by the AMD64), and ARM builds.
I have built a board around the Allwell A20 that has the same FPGA as used
on the Mesa 5i24 on the board as well as open drain drivers and input
conditioning and protection. At some point, I might decide to make a box,
and HMI to go with it, but for now it is just a board.
I have also made a number of changes to Gmoccapy to make it embedded
friendly, and so far it is working quite well.
The point is that I am already standing at this doorstep, and I am opening
the discussion as to what the best way is for me to contribute both the
changes to Linuxcnc and the embedded OS, and possibly collect some support
along the way.
-Neil-



On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Sarah Armstrong <
sarahj.armstron...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm Available !
> ( glad this is not an open group Gene ) LOL
> I'd probably have a queue around the block .
>
>
>
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

most of the tool requirements , i have in one form or another ,
but beware the tool list or database is one of the most complex and
embedded part of linuxcnc
and is not for the faint hearted .



On 25 December 2015 at 21:07, Neil Whelchel  wrote:

> Hello Brian,
> At the moment, the interface, and some OS integration are the places that I
> feel need the most attention.
> The interface needs tools to mount external (USB) devices and manage files
> as well as make backups and control the OS (shutdown, reboot...).  Another
> very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
> database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
> way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often, when I
> setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
> that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
> have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not be
> done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
> existing UIs have.
> At the moment, I see no need for a custom kernel or anything like that, but
> it will eventually end up there. We have to start with the lowest hanging
> fruit to do the most good in the least time, so starting with the intent to
> make an 'embedded' like UI is by far the lowest fruit.
> I will setup a public repository with what I have so far.
> -Neil-
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Brian  wrote:
>
> > I'll throw my hat in the ring for a more embedded, dedicated
> > appearing/functioning interface.  I think such an option would make LCNC
> a
> > more viable option for real, commercial application.
> >
> > This could be anything from a configuration option or GUI, to a full
> blown
> > dedicated kernel or anything in between.
> >
> > It seems to me that Tormach has already started down this path with Path
> > Pilot.  Although I have never actually seen it, from what I hear, it
> makes
> > accessing the desktop and other PC functionality not functional or not
> > obvious.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses
prior to leaving the RcTechnix network. RcTechnix will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
virus being passed on.

RcTechnix reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages being
sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or
detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring effective
operation.

(c) RcTechnix
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

On 12/25/2015 03:20 PM, Sarah Armstrong wrote:
> Hi Jon ,
>
> yes i'm aware of Machinekit , i do use it , but for industrial i dont think
> it's got enough horsepower
> and a more stable base is required , i believe to be long term stable for
> industrial uses
>
Yes, this is a problem with PCs, too.  I've been making 
control interface gear for EMC, EMC2 and finally LinuxCNC 
since about 2002. PCs have changed a LOT over that time, and 
I've had to make some changes to adapt to that.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[John Thornton]

This would be a trivial task for any UI, overwrite the tool table from a 
database and reload the tool table.

I might be interested in this part...

JT

On 12/25/2015 3:07 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
> Another
> very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
> database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
> way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often, when I
> setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
> that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
> have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not be
> done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
> existing UIs have.


--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Chris Morley]

> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:44:55 -0800
> From: neilwhelc...@gmail.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded
> 
> Hello Sarah,
> Much appreciated! I will start by sharing my thoughts and code. But it is
> unclear to me which approach is the best for everyone involved.
> As I mentioned before, I started with Gmoccapy. The more I think about it,
> the more I am thinking that it makes more sense to fork it as opposed to
> adding an embedded mode to it. The way I see it is that the embedded and
> desktop mods are just too much in conflict even though Gmoccapy seems to
> work best of all of the interfaces I have tested. So I think I am going to
> start by forking and removing all of the desktop specific things from
> Gmoccapy, unless someone has a better approach or suggestions.

gscreen was build with the idea of custom screens - in fact Gmoccapy
was a gscreen skin for quite along time.
There has been a gscreen skin built for a commercial plasma cutter.
then you don't have to fork you just add your code.

> Also, what's the deal with the tool editor?! Either I am not understanding
> the intent (if this is the case, someone please explain the design intent
> to me), or it is horrible. I will explain... There is a checkbox AND a row
> selection. You can have one row selected (highlighted) and another row
> checked. This is confusing at best, and difficult to use with a touch
> screen. Also, when using the on-screen keyboard, I find myself editing a
> field and then clicking on the next field which reverts the changes I just
> made. I have to force myself to slow down and click 'enter' every time. (I
> still find myself looping around and having to re-edit the same cell again
> and again because I am doing what I find natural and clicking on the next
> cell I want to edit.) I have made numerous changes to this to eliminate the
> checkbox, and to save the changes when the focus changes between cells. The
> problem is that in the meantime, someone added some tabs and such to the
> tool editor, so I need to update it for the changes. Anyone have
> suggestions here?

The original tool editor has checkboxes, Norbert of Gmoccapy added row 
selection (IIRC), in retrospect the row selection is the way to go and seems to 
not cause problems.
If you make improvements that you think the project might want you could
make a patch and post it on the dev maillist or forum. Be prepared for not
a lot of action on it though. In this case though the tooleditor was my project
and i would surely look at your changes.

Also if you update linuxcnc then having things change is kinda the norm.
If you make custom changes expect them to be overwritten.

Chris M

  
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[TJoseph Powderly]

Jon, you previously posted about repair using a material injected into 
cracks from inside.
I had my basement repaired that way and the annoying trickle across the 
basement floor is now gone.
Small flanged pipes were inserted along the crack and the epoxy-like 
material was injected at those points.
The problem wall is along the driveway so all runoff collects between 
the basement wall and the blacktop. A hundred years of owners engineered 
this gotcha.
I imagine theres a water tank growing outside that wall now, and think 
that more engineering of some top drainage will be needed. Bottom line, 
that stuff works great! Thanks for the tip
TomP tjtr33



--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[TJoseph Powderly]

basement fix pix
500$ total, with guarantee
since I'm in Thailand, and the crack is in Chicago,
i think its a good investment
tomp tjtr33


--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

> Can you explain exactly what you mean by embedded?
> i think you mean like a fanuc or tormach  where you turn on the machine and
> that is all you can see.
>
> Yes, along those lines. The point is not so much that as it is
reliability. It has to "just work", and it has to do so for people that do
not know much about linux, or computers.
For example, the system I built has everything in the initrd, so / is
mounted read only. Part programs, parameters, and tool tables are stored in
a small partition that is read-write. I added a button that makes a tarball
from the files on that partition to a raw partition (a backup button).
When the machine is booted, if the partition fails to mount, it is
formatted, and the tarball is restored to it. This way, no matter what disk
corruption may happen, it will always boot, even when the power is yanked
without a proper shutdown.


> > To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
> > environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some reason
> that
> > someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that is purpose built
> to
> > run EMC similar to the way the the folks at MyData made their stuff work?
>
> Distro work is a fairly painful and personal opinion work.
> Nobody really likes to do it. Nobody is happy with all choices made.
> It's necessary evil.
>

I have been maintaining distros for embedded systems for over 25 years now.
That is what I do. My main product is a distro that runs Asterisk in an
appliance, which I have modified to run Linuxcnc.

>
> > Is there some reason that the user interfaces do not have the features of
> > an embedded system included such as a button to shutdown or reboot the
> > system, or even an embedded mode that makes them take over the whole
> screen?
>
> take over the screen yes - gmoccapy any of gscreen and even AXIS can (with
> a bit of work)
> Shutdown and reboot surely that can be added - you are the first to ask
> about it
> that I know of.
>
> Without these features, it is incomplete and it must work in a desktop
environment. This is the most important thing that stands in the way of
Linuxcnc being taken seriously by machine builders. It is really the
defining difference between a commercial system, and a hobby system.



> > For example, Gmoccapy has a feature in the settings to take over the
> whole
> > screen, but it is an option that you can get to via the GUI. For this to
> be
> > realistic, this option needs to be in a configuration file that you can
> not
> > get to via the GUI.
>
> Gmoccapy and gscreen Industrial have that option page hidden behind a
> security
> code. It would be easy to make it not pop the security code dialog.
>

I know about that, but that is not the point. The interface needs to be
purpose built to take over the system. I will use MyData TpSys as my
example here.
-Neil-



>
> Chris M
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] seasons greetings

[Jon Elson]

On 12/24/2015 10:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> Its that time of the year again, and there not a PC bone in my body, so
>
> Merry Christmas everyone!
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, seasons greetings, 
whatever floats your boat!

My appreciation for all the hard work you guys have been 
doing all these years!

I know I haven't contributed much, but I'm up to my ears 
with building boards for people.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

yes you can do that , although i do it manually
(good idea i'll add that ) it would help to keep the partfile & tools
sync'd eitherway
i.e import the gcode or part file from a dropdown and update the tools
accordingly .

it will work the same for solidcam too ,


On 25 December 2015 at 22:48, John Thornton  wrote:

> Are you pulling the part files from the server too? Seems you could
> "send" both the part file and the tool table... just thinking out loud.
>
> JT
>
> On 12/25/2015 4:42 PM, Sarah Armstrong wrote:
> > JT
> > the problem is not in the database per se , but in keeping the database
> in
> > sync
> > i have it just about working , with a distributed server , linked into my
> > camworks tooldatabase
> > on a windows server across 7 machines .
> >
> > a little bit more testing , and see , the problem is it would need some
> > changes to linuxcnc
> > for serious users then fine , but probably not individuals .. thats my
> > trauma to work out if i can
> > to make it more transparent to the user . so just a heads up
> >
> >
> > On 25 December 2015 at 22:10, John Thornton  wrote:
> >
> >> This would be a trivial task for any UI, overwrite the tool table from a
> >> database and reload the tool table.
> >>
> >> I might be interested in this part...
> >>
> >> JT
> >>
> >> On 12/25/2015 3:07 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
> >>> Another
> >>> very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
> >>> database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be
> a
> >>> way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often,
> >> when I
> >>> setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
> >>> that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
> >>> have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can
> not
> >> be
> >>> done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
> >>> existing UIs have.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --
> >> ___
> >> Emc-developers mailing list
> >> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses
prior to leaving the RcTechnix network. RcTechnix will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
virus being passed on.

RcTechnix reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages being
sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or
detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring effective
operation.

(c) RcTechnix
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

On 12/25/2015 04:17 PM, EBo wrote:
> There have been a couple of commercial ventures which have invested in
> LCNC.  Or should I say used EMC/LCNC and once they got something stable,
> kept it that way and did not upgrade.  I will be interested to see if
> Tormach will be any different
> .
>Are they going to use LCNC and move on, or are they going to seriously
> give back to the community?
My understanding is they funded Robert Ellenberg for a lot 
of his MAJOR rewrite and extension of the trajectory 
planner.  I think they are paying him or somebody else to do 
some other things.  I can't remember what that was at the 
moment.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

On 12/25/2015 08:49 PM, TJoseph Powderly wrote:
> basement fix pix
> 500$ total, with guarantee
Yup, that looks similar to mine.  It was about $90 including 
shipping the kit of stuff to me.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

Hi Jon ,

yes i'm aware of Machinekit , i do use it , but for industrial i dont think
it's got enough horsepower
and a more stable base is required , i believe to be long term stable for
industrial uses


On 25 December 2015 at 21:14, Jon Elson  wrote:

> I apologize in advance for stirring up a hornet's nest, but
> a branch of the LinuxCNC project has been created called
> machinekit.  It is mostly aimed at the ARM processors such
> as the Beagle Bone.  it works
> quite well on the $55 Beagle Bone Black computer.  You can
> attach an LCD screen directly, or log in over the network or
> USB from a laptop or other computer.  The 200 MHz
> microcontrollers built into the CPU chip do a very good job
> of step pulse generation, almost as good as a hardware step
> generator, and WAY better than software step generation.
>
> Not sure if this is what you were looking for.
>
> Jon
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses
prior to leaving the RcTechnix network. RcTechnix will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
virus being passed on.

RcTechnix reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages being
sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or
detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring effective
operation.

(c) RcTechnix
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] seasons greetings

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 16:16:44 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 12/24/2015 10:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > Its that time of the year again, and there not a PC bone in my body,
> > so
> >
> > Merry Christmas everyone!
> >
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, seasons greetings,
> whatever floats your boat!
>
> My appreciation for all the hard work you guys have been
> doing all these years!
>
> I know I haven't contributed much, but I'm up to my ears
> with building boards for people.
>
> Jon

Lets not forget that you too, have designed some decent stuff, and have 
not put up any arguments when it might work better with a slight mod.  
Too many in the proprietary camp have a take it or leave it attitude 
that IMO ought to kill more sales than it does.

So I thank you very much, and hope you've had an enjoyable Christmas so 
far today.


> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Chris Morley]

> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:09:23 -0800
> From: neilwhelc...@gmail.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded
> 
> Hello,
> One of the things that troubles me is that I am not seeing much work to
> make the Linuxcnc project feel like an embedded system.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by embedded?
i think you mean like a fanuc or tormach  where you turn on the machine and
that is all you can see.

> To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
> environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some reason that
> someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that is purpose built to
> run EMC similar to the way the the folks at MyData made their stuff work?

Distro work is a fairly painful and personal opinion work.
Nobody really likes to do it. Nobody is happy with all choices made.
It's necessary evil.

> Is there some reason that the user interfaces do not have the features of
> an embedded system included such as a button to shutdown or reboot the
> system, or even an embedded mode that makes them take over the whole screen?

take over the screen yes - gmoccapy any of gscreen and even AXIS can (with a 
bit of work)
Shutdown and reboot surely that can be added - you are the first to ask about it
that I know of.

> For example, Gmoccapy has a feature in the settings to take over the whole
> screen, but it is an option that you can get to via the GUI. For this to be
> realistic, this option needs to be in a configuration file that you can not
> get to via the GUI.

Gmoccapy and gscreen Industrial have that option page hidden behind a security
code. It would be easy to make it not pop the security code dialog.

I'm pretty sure you can have ubuntu load a program on startup, so
besides seeing Ububtu or debian start screen you could have your screen
start up directly.

Chris M
  
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 19:22:18 Chris Morley wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:09:23 -0800
> > From: neilwhelc...@gmail.com
> > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded
> >
> > Hello,
> > One of the things that troubles me is that I am not seeing much work
> > to make the Linuxcnc project feel like an embedded system.
>
> Can you explain exactly what you mean by embedded?
> i think you mean like a fanuc or tormach  where you turn on the
> machine and that is all you can see.
>
> > To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
> > environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some
> > reason that someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that
> > is purpose built to run EMC similar to the way the the folks at
> > MyData made their stuff work?
>
> Distro work is a fairly painful and personal opinion work.
> Nobody really likes to do it. Nobody is happy with all choices made.
> It's necessary evil.
>
> > Is there some reason that the user interfaces do not have the
> > features of an embedded system included such as a button to shutdown
> > or reboot the system, or even an embedded mode that makes them take
> > over the whole screen?
>
> take over the screen yes - gmoccapy any of gscreen and even AXIS can
> (with a bit of work) Shutdown and reboot surely that can be added -
> you are the first to ask about it that I know of.
>
> > For example, Gmoccapy has a feature in the settings to take over the
> > whole screen, but it is an option that you can get to via the GUI.
> > For this to be realistic, this option needs to be in a configuration
> > file that you can not get to via the GUI.
>
> Gmoccapy and gscreen Industrial have that option page hidden behind a
> security code. It would be easy to make it not pop the security code
> dialog.
>
> I'm pretty sure you can have ubuntu load a program on startup, so
> besides seeing Ububtu or debian start screen you could have your
> screen start up directly.
>
> Chris M

ISTR that is called the Kiosk mode, Chris.  Boots directly into the 
application.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Sarah,
Much appreciated! I will start by sharing my thoughts and code. But it is
unclear to me which approach is the best for everyone involved.
As I mentioned before, I started with Gmoccapy. The more I think about it,
the more I am thinking that it makes more sense to fork it as opposed to
adding an embedded mode to it. The way I see it is that the embedded and
desktop mods are just too much in conflict even though Gmoccapy seems to
work best of all of the interfaces I have tested. So I think I am going to
start by forking and removing all of the desktop specific things from
Gmoccapy, unless someone has a better approach or suggestions.
Also, what's the deal with the tool editor?! Either I am not understanding
the intent (if this is the case, someone please explain the design intent
to me), or it is horrible. I will explain... There is a checkbox AND a row
selection. You can have one row selected (highlighted) and another row
checked. This is confusing at best, and difficult to use with a touch
screen. Also, when using the on-screen keyboard, I find myself editing a
field and then clicking on the next field which reverts the changes I just
made. I have to force myself to slow down and click 'enter' every time. (I
still find myself looping around and having to re-edit the same cell again
and again because I am doing what I find natural and clicking on the next
cell I want to edit.) I have made numerous changes to this to eliminate the
checkbox, and to save the changes when the focus changes between cells. The
problem is that in the meantime, someone added some tabs and such to the
tool editor, so I need to update it for the changes. Anyone have
suggestions here?
-Neil-


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Sarah Armstrong <
sarahj.armstron...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i'm happy to help Neil
>
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

JT
the problem is not in the database per se , but in keeping the database in
sync
i have it just about working , with a distributed server , linked into my
camworks tooldatabase
on a windows server across 7 machines .

a little bit more testing , and see , the problem is it would need some
changes to linuxcnc
for serious users then fine , but probably not individuals .. thats my
trauma to work out if i can
to make it more transparent to the user . so just a heads up


On 25 December 2015 at 22:10, John Thornton  wrote:

> This would be a trivial task for any UI, overwrite the tool table from a
> database and reload the tool table.
>
> I might be interested in this part...
>
> JT
>
> On 12/25/2015 3:07 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
> > Another
> > very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
> > database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
> > way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often,
> when I
> > setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
> > that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
> > have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not
> be
> > done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
> > existing UIs have.
>
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses
prior to leaving the RcTechnix network. RcTechnix will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
virus being passed on.

RcTechnix reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages being
sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or
detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring effective
operation.

(c) RcTechnix
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[EBo]

On Dec 25 2015 4:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 12/25/2015 04:17 PM, EBo wrote:
>> There have been a couple of commercial ventures which have invested 
>> in
>> LCNC.  Or should I say used EMC/LCNC and once they got something 
>> stable,
>> kept it that way and did not upgrade.  I will be interested to see 
>> if
>> Tormach will be any different
>> 
>> .
>>Are they going to use LCNC and move on, or are they going to 
>> seriously
>> give back to the community?
> My understanding is they funded Robert Ellenberg for a lot
> of his MAJOR rewrite and extension of the trajectory
> planner.  I think they are paying him or somebody else to do
> some other things.  I can't remember what that was at the
> moment.

That would be nice to know.  I interviewed with them a little before 
landing the job at NASA.  They seemed line an interesting place, but was 
all about their patents...

   EBo --

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Chris Morley]

> >> kept it that way and did not upgrade.  I will be interested to see > >> if
> >> Tormach will be any different
> >> 
> >> .
> >>Are they going to use LCNC and move on, or are they going to 
> >> seriously
> >> give back to the community?
> > My understanding is they funded Robert Ellenberg for a lot
> > of his MAJOR rewrite and extension of the trajectory
> > planner.  I think they are paying him or somebody else to do
> > some other things.  I can't remember what that was at the
> > moment.
> 

They just has John Morris do some work for fanuc style subroutine calls.
He has worked to get it added to linuxcnc.
So I think Tormach has and continues to be, a contributor.
Certainly way better the Sherline or grizzly or any other I can think of.
 
Chris M
  
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Chris,
Yes, Ubuntu and most others will load up whatever you want on boot, but
that is really not the point. The problem with nearly ANY release out there
is that there is a TON of bloat. Take just the window manager alone, most
of them use OpenGL to do fancy transitions, some window managers have more
than 200,000 lines of code! There are dozens of things that Ubuntu loads
that are not desirable in a system that must be reliable. The idea here is
lean and mean. The more things that are loaded or running, the better the
chances that something will crash or otherwise go wrong. The distro that I
am working with is just under 21 MB total. The entire thing including
Linuxcnc fits in the initrd. That and the Linux kernel fit onto the 32 MB
flash on my ARM board, and it boots to Gmoccapy in less than 10 seconds.
-Neil-



> > I'm pretty sure you can have ubuntu load a program on startup, so
> > besides seeing Ububtu or debian start screen you could have your
> > screen start up directly.
> >
> > Chris M
>
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Sarah Armstrong]

i'm happy to help Neil


On 25 December 2015 at 20:00, Neil Whelchel  wrote:

> Hello all,
> First of all, this is a really fantastic bunch of people here! I can't
> think of any other mail list where everyone that has replied so far makes
> sense and provides directly useful insight.
> I realize that maintaining an embedded OS is not easy, and expensive. I
> have been doing this since 1993, and I have focused specifically on the X86
> (replaced by the AMD64), and ARM builds.
> I have built a board around the Allwell A20 that has the same FPGA as used
> on the Mesa 5i24 on the board as well as open drain drivers and input
> conditioning and protection. At some point, I might decide to make a box,
> and HMI to go with it, but for now it is just a board.
> I have also made a number of changes to Gmoccapy to make it embedded
> friendly, and so far it is working quite well.
> The point is that I am already standing at this doorstep, and I am opening
> the discussion as to what the best way is for me to contribute both the
> changes to Linuxcnc and the embedded OS, and possibly collect some support
> along the way.
> -Neil-
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Sarah Armstrong <
> sarahj.armstron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm Available !
> > ( glad this is not an open group Gene ) LOL
> > I'd probably have a queue around the block .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 

The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error or there
are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorised
use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly
forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses
prior to leaving the RcTechnix network. RcTechnix will not be liable for
direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration
of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any
virus being passed on.

RcTechnix reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages being
sent to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or
detecting any unauthorised use of its system and ensuring effective
operation.

(c) RcTechnix
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Neil Whelchel]

Hello Brian,
At the moment, the interface, and some OS integration are the places that I
feel need the most attention.
The interface needs tools to mount external (USB) devices and manage files
as well as make backups and control the OS (shutdown, reboot...).  Another
very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often, when I
setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not be
done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
existing UIs have.
At the moment, I see no need for a custom kernel or anything like that, but
it will eventually end up there. We have to start with the lowest hanging
fruit to do the most good in the least time, so starting with the intent to
make an 'embedded' like UI is by far the lowest fruit.
I will setup a public repository with what I have so far.
-Neil-


On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Brian  wrote:

> I'll throw my hat in the ring for a more embedded, dedicated
> appearing/functioning interface.  I think such an option would make LCNC a
> more viable option for real, commercial application.
>
> This could be anything from a configuration option or GUI, to a full blown
> dedicated kernel or anything in between.
>
> It seems to me that Tormach has already started down this path with Path
> Pilot.  Although I have never actually seen it, from what I hear, it makes
> accessing the desktop and other PC functionality not functional or not
> obvious.
>
> Brian
>
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Kenneth Lerman]

I would suggest that you try not to fork. I would add a variable to the
.ini file "EMBEDDED=1" to set embedded mode and then have appropriate tests
in the code. I might also consider having a second variable "DESKTOP=1" to
set desktop mode.

So every place that you are inclined to remove code because it is only used
in desktop mode you can just test "if desktop..." Stuff that only belongs
in embedded mode can be inside "if embedded..." tests.

Remember that if you fork it, you own it. Any future maintenance might have
to be done in two places.

Ken

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Neil Whelchel 
wrote:

> Hello Sarah,
> Much appreciated! I will start by sharing my thoughts and code. But it is
> unclear to me which approach is the best for everyone involved.
> As I mentioned before, I started with Gmoccapy. The more I think about it,
> the more I am thinking that it makes more sense to fork it as opposed to
> adding an embedded mode to it. The way I see it is that the embedded and
> desktop mods are just too much in conflict even though Gmoccapy seems to
> work best of all of the interfaces I have tested. So I think I am going to
> start by forking and removing all of the desktop specific things from
> Gmoccapy, unless someone has a better approach or suggestions.
> Also, what's the deal with the tool editor?! Either I am not understanding
> the intent (if this is the case, someone please explain the design intent
> to me), or it is horrible. I will explain... There is a checkbox AND a row
> selection. You can have one row selected (highlighted) and another row
> checked. This is confusing at best, and difficult to use with a touch
> screen. Also, when using the on-screen keyboard, I find myself editing a
> field and then clicking on the next field which reverts the changes I just
> made. I have to force myself to slow down and click 'enter' every time. (I
> still find myself looping around and having to re-edit the same cell again
> and again because I am doing what I find natural and clicking on the next
> cell I want to edit.) I have made numerous changes to this to eliminate the
> checkbox, and to save the changes when the focus changes between cells. The
> problem is that in the meantime, someone added some tabs and such to the
> tool editor, so I need to update it for the changes. Anyone have
> suggestions here?
> -Neil-
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Sarah Armstrong <
> sarahj.armstron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i'm happy to help Neil
> >
> >
>
> --
> ___
> Emc-developers mailing list
> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>



-- 
Kenneth Lerman
55 Main Street
Newtown, CT 06470
--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

On 12/25/2015 03:59 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> No white Christmas here, steady rain, long enough my 
> basement floor is getting wet. Darnit! I need to deepen 
> the sump pump pit another 6 feet I guess. Or get a hoe in 
> here with a 15 foot arm and put in a french drain that deep.
The glue job I did on the two cracks in our basement is 
still holding, and we've had enough rain on a couple 
occasions that we would have had major puddles before the 
fix.  So, that is really good news!  I've got stuff piled 
all over the place, often in cardboard boxes, so flooded 
floors really made a mess.

Our last house had a foundation that leaked literally like a 
sieve, there were thousands of leaks, no hope of ever fixing it.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

On 12/25/2015 08:15 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Looking at your place, it does look like a comfortable place, level
> ground even. That sort of dirt starts at 100k an acre here in WV, with
> nothing on it but a few scraggly trees.  Or you spend it in diesel fuel
> making it flat...
Maybe more level than WV, but in the front of the house it 
is a step below the main floor, in the back, it is roughly 
level with the basement floor.  But, that is GOOD, you can 
have a walk-out basement!
We're in a tony part of the suburb, so our acre is likely 
worth more than that.  At least, the county assessor is sure 
telling us that!
> Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year everybody. :)
>
>
Merry Christmas to you and yours!  (And, everybody else, too!)

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Chris Morley]

> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:23:52 -0800
> From: neilwhelc...@gmail.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded
> 
> > Can you explain exactly what you mean by embedded?
> > i think you mean like a fanuc or tormach  where you turn on the machine and
> > that is all you can see.
> >
> > Yes, along those lines. The point is not so much that as it is
> reliability. It has to "just work", and it has to do so for people that do
> not know much about linux, or computers.
> For example, the system I built has everything in the initrd, so / is
> mounted read only. Part programs, parameters, and tool tables are stored in
> a small partition that is read-write. I added a button that makes a tarball
> from the files on that partition to a raw partition (a backup button).
> When the machine is booted, if the partition fails to mount, it is
> formatted, and the tarball is restored to it. This way, no matter what disk
> corruption may happen, it will always boot, even when the power is yanked
> without a proper shutdown.
> 
> 
> > > To me, it just seems quite unprofessional to have a desktop looking
> > > environment that is running in a milling machine. Is there some reason
> > that
> > > someone (other than me) has not worked up a distro that is purpose built
> > to
> > > run EMC similar to the way the the folks at MyData made their stuff work?
> >
> > Distro work is a fairly painful and personal opinion work.
> > Nobody really likes to do it. Nobody is happy with all choices made.
> > It's necessary evil.
> >
> 
> I have been maintaining distros for embedded systems for over 25 years now.
> That is what I do. My main product is a distro that runs Asterisk in an
> appliance, which I have modified to run Linuxcnc.
> 

Then it seems you are the perfect person to to build such a distro.
I was telling _why_  (at least one reason) we don't spend more time on a custom 
os.
I know nothing of Asterisk. But I must say having a way to run linuxcnc 
'locked and secure' would be excellent on one of my projects, on another i 
would prefer the way we have it.

> >
> > > Is there some reason that the user interfaces do not have the features of
> > > an embedded system included such as a button to shutdown or reboot the
> > > system, or even an embedded mode that makes them take over the whole
> > screen?
> >
> > take over the screen yes - gmoccapy any of gscreen and even AXIS can (with
> > a bit of work)
> > Shutdown and reboot surely that can be added - you are the first to ask
> > about it
> > that I know of.
> >
> > Without these features, it is incomplete and it must work in a desktop
> environment. This is the most important thing that stands in the way of
> Linuxcnc being taken seriously by machine builders. It is really the
> defining difference between a commercial system, and a hobby system.
> 
> 
> 
> > > For example, Gmoccapy has a feature in the settings to take over the
> > whole
> > > screen, but it is an option that you can get to via the GUI. For this to
> > be
> > > realistic, this option needs to be in a configuration file that you can
> > not
> > > get to via the GUI.
> >
> > Gmoccapy and gscreen Industrial have that option page hidden behind a
> > security
> > code. It would be easy to make it not pop the security code dialog.
> >
> 
> I know about that, but that is not the point. The interface needs to be
> purpose built to take over the system. I will use MyData TpSys as my
> example here.
> -Neil-
> 

Hmm another reference I know nothing of.
So far you have said that you need the interface to have shutdown and reboot.
Which could be added fairly easy I am pretty sure.
In fullscreen mode the desktop is not seen.

and you want a stripped down os that is more secure and 'hardened'
against user tinkering.

Your original question asks why we are not working on such things.
I would say that because not many of us are making money making 
machines. If I was doing retrofits of machines, selling to manufactures
then I agree i would want an os like you talking of.

supporting different OSes takes effort and it's not fun effort for most.
If your custom OS didn't add much burden to the code and was licenced
properly and you would maintain it  Maybe the devs would host it.

Personally I would love to see linuxcnc on more machines especially in 
industry. I love seeing the videos of guys retrofitting linuxcnc to
old iron in money making shops.

But that is not the official direction of linuxcnc - because it has no official 
direction. By far and large linuxcnc is pushed forward by people who
 are interested in a particular feature or a particular challenge.
There has been many 'discussions' and a fork over this reality. 

I would encourage you to work towards you goal - it sounds like a good
 one. I can't say if linuxcnc will embrace it wholeheartedly.
I think being able to make the existing screens act more 'embedded'
 would be excellent for the guys 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Dave Cole]

On 12/25/2015 7:05 PM, EBo wrote:
> On Dec 25 2015 4:11 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
>> On 12/25/2015 04:17 PM, EBo wrote:
>>> There have been a couple of commercial ventures which have invested
>>> in
>>> LCNC.  Or should I say used EMC/LCNC and once they got something
>>> stable,
>>> kept it that way and did not upgrade.  I will be interested to see
>>> if
>>> Tormach will be any different
>>>
>>> .
>>> Are they going to use LCNC and move on, or are they going to
>>> seriously
>>> give back to the community?
>> My understanding is they funded Robert Ellenberg for a lot
>> of his MAJOR rewrite and extension of the trajectory
>> planner.  I think they are paying him or somebody else to do
>> some other things.  I can't remember what that was at the
>> moment.
> That would be nice to know.  I interviewed with them a little before
> landing the job at NASA.  They seemed line an interesting place, but was
> all about their patents...
>
> EBo --
I think they have funded at least 4 developers that I know of, and I bet 
there have been more.

Dave C.


--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 21:49:42 TJoseph Powderly wrote:

> basement fix pix
> 500$ total, with guarantee
> since I'm in Thailand, and the crack is in Chicago,
> i think its a good investment
> tomp tjtr33

Looks good from here, but what the heck are you doing on the far side of 
the big pond?  I always assumed you were local to the locale. ;)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Jon Elson]

I apologize in advance for stirring up a hornet's nest, but 
a branch of the LinuxCNC project has been created called 
machinekit.  It is mostly aimed at the ARM processors such 
as the Beagle Bone.  it works
quite well on the $55 Beagle Bone Black computer.  You can 
attach an LCD screen directly, or log in over the network or 
USB from a laptop or other computer.  The 200 MHz 
microcontrollers built into the CPU chip do a very good job 
of step pulse generation, almost as good as a hardware step 
generator, and WAY better than software step generation.

Not sure if this is what you were looking for.

Jon

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 13:32:22 Sarah Armstrong wrote:

> I'm Available !
> ( glad this is not an open group Gene ) LOL
> I'd probably have a queue around the block .

Chuckle.  I have  mental picture that says anyone named Sarah, is a 
pretty lady indeed. But most of the guys I know who might get in that 
line would probably want to see a picture of the boat and motor. :)  But 
that joke is at least as old as I am. 8:\  Merry Christmas to you and 
yours Sarah.

No white Christmas here, steady rain, long enough my basement floor is 
getting wet.  Darnit!  I need to deepen the sump pump pit another 6 feet 
I guess.  Or get a hoe in here with a 15 foot arm and put in a french 
drain that deep.

> On 25 December 2015 at 18:25, Gene Heskett  wrote:
> > On Friday 25 December 2015 12:13:06 Sarah Armstrong wrote:
> > > As always Stuart hit the nail .
> > > totally agree , also people dont understand the many thousands of
> > > hours that it must be by now
> > > put in by all concerned , into producing what i concider to be an
> > > outstanding peice of software .
> > >
> > > in a lot of cases, as neil suggests as well as others , companys
> > > would like to use linuxcnc , but for the aspect of
> > > configuration , and maintence to suit them . and or having someone
> > > to shout at if it all goes wrong , which they can't do on a forum
> > > ! and at the end of the day , the machines need to work , not sit
> > > idle fine , but how many engineering companys have software people
> > > who are also engineers ( stuart excepted ! )
> > >
> > > so they like the idea of having someone else hold their hands ,
> > > and in most cases do what they cannot .
> > > i.e programming or gui configuring .
> >
> > And that right there says there is a market for such skills. Those
> > who have the time should put a 1" in the trade rags and let
> > potential clients know you are available.
> >
> > > On 25 December 2015 at 16:31, Stuart Stevenson 
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > Gentlemen,
> > > > I had a machine tool dealer/long time personal friend stop by
> > > > last week. I have known him since 1989.
> > > > He tried to hire me as his service department in 1993.
> > > > I have purchased three new machines and one used machine from
> > > > him but no machines since I started putting controls on old
> > > > iron. The Cinci at MPM is the used machine I purchased from him.
> > > > I give you that as background.
> > > > In 1997 I installed MDSI's OpenCNC on three 5 axis mills.
> > > > He was apprised of the situation from the beginning.
> > > > When I would explain what I was doing his eyes would glaze over
> > > > as this information would not result in a machine sale for him.
> > > > Last week he asked me if LinuxCNC has tool length compensation
> > > > and cutter compensation and work piece offsets. After all these
> > > > years he still had to ask as there is no way a control you
> > > > download free can do anything real. I said yes and tried to
> > > > explain to him about the LinuxCNC kinematics I wrote to correct
> > > > the geometry on the Cinci 5 axis. Again, I saw the eyes glaze
> > > > over. How could he make profit on the purchase of an old machine
> > > > and installing a free control even if it was a better than new
> > > > machine when you finished?
> > > > I don't have a killer UI to show him. All I have is UI the
> > > > operators will use but not tell people they prefer over other
> > > > control UIs. The UI acceptance is critical as the person in
> > > > control of the purse is not usually the one running the machine
> > > > (in the environment of this conversation). The operator must be
> > > > able to explain the benefits of using the control and without a
> > > > sweet UI the explanation of benefits will never happen. The
> > > > conundrum I see is without the prospect of commercial profit you
> > > > will get no interest in implementation of LinuxCNC in the
> > > > commercial world no matter how much better it is compared to as
> > > > it is now with the software free and the developers giving their
> > > > time without monetary compensation. Several years ago I had a
> > > > dealer bring his importer for a visit. During the conversation I
> > > > asked if they would allow me buy a machine without a control.
> > > > After they discussed it for a minute they agreed to allow me to
> > > > buy a new machine without a control. I was not in a position to
> > > > take advantage at that time but I believe it could be done today
> > > > (maybe easier). I have considered what it would be like to have
> > > > a new machine with LinuxCNC controlling it at IMTS. That would
> > > > be expensive and how would I be able to recover my expenses? It
> > > > could easily cost USD50,000.00 to show a machine at IMTS. No
> > > > doubt it would be fun but profitable? Probably not. For me that
> > > > is not a problem as I like it the way it is now. You have a
> > > > problem? Start on the 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[EBo]

Looks like someone needs a happy-pill...  How about the LCARS (of Star 
Trek fame) Home Automation interface 
?

Seriously though, Juergen Gnoss covered much of the important bits -- 
such as configurable UI's that can be as simple as 1 botton (C like) and 
as complicated as a desktop with all its apps (like PL1 and flying a 
plane with 10,000 buttons).  But I think he missed something that is the 
real reason that it has not been adopted commercially -- it runs solely 
on Linux and not until recently on embedded machines.  Most machine 
manufactures in the past considered non-Windows a non-starter.  But as 
you point out, we could do a little better with showing examples of how 
simple a machine setup can be, most show the most fancy stuff (as we all 
know we do not have to go all Botticelli 

 
on the UI, but we can if we want to).

For the brave few who ventured into embedded territory found that there 
was little support within the LCNC community.  Part of that, and part of 
the dynamics of what happes within the LCNC community takes a little 
background to know who is pushing the LCNC rock up the hill, and how 
much time they have to spend a month.  Some time back there was a fairly 
substantial inflush of new blood into LinuxCNC and MachineKit.  Before 
that the top 4 contributers was only able to dedicate about 100 hrs a 
YEAR, not each month.  So where are the legions of minions to make the 
magic happen?  On top of this, people building the controllers typically 
feel that hardware is the important part and we should support them in 
the software for free (because, well... we GIVE it away don't we?).  So, 
this ends up with us "hobbyists" working on old equiptment when we break 
away time from work, family, and other projects.  If/when some of these 
big name manufacturers decide to pony up test/integration gear, then I 
think you will find things moving a lot faster.

There have been a couple of commercial ventures which have invested in 
LCNC.  Or should I say used EMC/LCNC and once they got something stable, 
kept it that way and did not upgrade.  I will be interested to see if 
Tormach will be any different 
.
 
  Are they going to use LCNC and move on, or are they going to seriously 
give back to the community?

I also know a lot more about the internals and history of EMC/EMC2/LCNC 
to feel comfortable saying that is is "a marvel of fantastic software 
engineering" but it is likely "far superior to many professional 
controllers" which should keep the likes of you up at night.  It does me 
sometimes, but to be fair, that was after working as a contractor on a 
machine which doses people up with radiation as part of their cancer 
treatments.  The take home message from that project was DON'T GET 
CANCER!

So as for my new toys, my new lathe dresses out at just over 7,000# and 
is 10' long, and stand 5' tall.  Is this a toy, or is this a real 
machine?  I guess only time will tell, but we are setting up an entire 
tool-chain where we do all the CAD/CAM work in the office, and transfer 
the programs to the machine after all the processing, modeling, etc.  
Having a dxf2gcode is useful, but it does not have to be on the same 
computer as the RT drivers, etc.  It can exist within the LCNC 
ecosystem/tool-chain.

So, please forgive Dave's tripping over your buttons and take a happy 
pill for the day.  Thank you for the suggestion of adding to our 
examples simple control examples to show how a stripped down minimalist 
machine would look like, and also for the implied suggestion of 
clarifying what should, and maybe should not, be included on a machine 
that is doing hard RT motion control.  If I am not mistaken the advise 
in the past is to not have the computer doing anything on the net, or 
that has a huge resource cost, and perferably dedicate the computer to 
controlling the machine.

   EBo --

On Dec 25 2015 5:22 AM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
> Hello Dave,
> I simply can not afford to have a machine idle while I use an "app" 
> on it.
> If it is not running, it is not making money. If I am editing a 
> program,
> someone else is using the machine to make things. There are plenty of 
> small
> shops and "one man bands" that use a desktop computer for CAD/CAM, 
> and
> editing, then they upload the program to a machine to make the part. 
> I, for
> one do not like to be sitting in the middle of a workshop in an 
> awkward
> position to see a small display mounted to the side of a 5,000 pound
> machine to write G-code, when I can do it from the comfort of my desk 
> in my
> office.
> Also, we are right back to if I am running something like an "app" on 
> the
> machine, a keyboard and such is required, and I am not about to put a
> keyboard on a machine, the coolant and chips would 

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[John Thornton]

Are you pulling the part files from the server too? Seems you could 
"send" both the part file and the tool table... just thinking out loud.

JT

On 12/25/2015 4:42 PM, Sarah Armstrong wrote:
> JT
> the problem is not in the database per se , but in keeping the database in
> sync
> i have it just about working , with a distributed server , linked into my
> camworks tooldatabase
> on a windows server across 7 machines .
>
> a little bit more testing , and see , the problem is it would need some
> changes to linuxcnc
> for serious users then fine , but probably not individuals .. thats my
> trauma to work out if i can
> to make it more transparent to the user . so just a heads up
>
>
> On 25 December 2015 at 22:10, John Thornton  wrote:
>
>> This would be a trivial task for any UI, overwrite the tool table from a
>> database and reload the tool table.
>>
>> I might be interested in this part...
>>
>> JT
>>
>> On 12/25/2015 3:07 PM, Neil Whelchel wrote:
>>> Another
>>> very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
>>> database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
>>> way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often,
>> when I
>>> setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
>>> that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
>>> have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not
>> be
>>> done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
>>> existing UIs have.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Emc-developers mailing list
>> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>
>
>


--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 25 December 2015 18:06:27 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 12/25/2015 03:59 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > No white Christmas here, steady rain, long enough my
> > basement floor is getting wet. Darnit! I need to deepen
> > the sump pump pit another 6 feet I guess. Or get a hoe in
> > here with a 15 foot arm and put in a french drain that deep.
>
> The glue job I did on the two cracks in our basement is
> still holding, and we've had enough rain on a couple
> occasions that we would have had major puddles before the
> fix.  So, that is really good news!  I've got stuff piled
> all over the place, often in cardboard boxes, so flooded
> floors really made a mess.
>
> Our last house had a foundation that leaked literally like a
> sieve, there were thousands of leaks, no hope of ever fixing it.
>
> Jon
>
This basement is apparently built using 12" wide hatite? cement blocks.  
You are I imagine familiar with them.  You can spray a garden hose on 
one side for 30 seconds, shut the hose off and walk to the other side of 
the wall and its wet enough to be running down the inside wall.  But the 
bui,der knew it, so the outside, above the foundation, was given a coat 
of waterproofing tar. But 40 years later, the tar seems to have largely 
gone away, and water pressure has eroded lead pencil and larger holes 
all the way through within 3" of the floor.  So anytime the water table 
(its all solid yellow clay backfill here & damned near water proof 
itself) gets above the floor level, it starts coming in because the 
blocks are lower resistance than the clay.

I blew a hole in the basement floor adjacent to the back wall, and sank a 
sump pit 30" deep last spring, and the sump pump is helping, but 2 
things, I am pumping into the sewer (sick bird) by way  of the laundry 
tub drain because getting a hose out to the gutter drains also subjects 
it to freezing temps most winters, and it obviously needs to be sunk 
another 5 or 6 feet just to keep the water table below the floor.  The 
other thing is that the basement, except for the washer/dryer is on a 
single breaker, a 15 amp, and with the lights added in, is maxed out and 
the romex is running warm with two dehumidifiers, whatever else I may 
have running, and the sump pump, a 1/3rd horse all running at once. I am 
giving thought to buying another roll of 10-3w/g, and adding a separate 
254 volt CT single phase circuit down there just to run the pump & all 3 
dehumidifiers.

But have you priced a 100' roll of 10-3w/g lately?  Scary.  We tipped a 
ground floor breaker earlier this week, reason unk, took everything in 
the kitchen & front room down.  So I have got to do, or have done, 
something about this houses wiring. In 1975  when it was built, WV 
hadn't yet seen a copy of what would turn into the NEC, and enforcement 
is so riddled with grandfather clauses that one of them ought to be 
named Santa. The original service box, which is now a subcircuit off the 
200 amp service I installed in 2007, has a 40 amp 2 pole main.  Its a 
kludge I have bad dreams about when it was new!  Humm, I just remembered 
that the OEM cookstove was electric, so there is a circuit thats now 
loaded only my the gas stoves ignition, clock and oven lights, plus I 
ran another duplex off that to plug in one of lifes basic requirements, 
a Mr. Coffee.  If I can find that run in the basement, kill it & put in 
a 4 by j-box, there's the power I need for water control. Pay no 
attention to any bzzt's you hear. :)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Moving closer to embedded

[Len Shelton]

 >> beware the tool list or database is one of the most complex and 
embedded part of linuxcnc

Not if you actually understand coordinate systems - why and how to use 
them (math), tool length and diameter compensation - why and how to use 
them (math), and can read and edit text in a text editor. Because if you 
do, then its a breeze.

 >Len


On 12/25/2015 3:28 PM, Sarah Armstrong wrote:
> most of the tool requirements , i have in one form or another ,
> but beware the tool list or database is one of the most complex and
> embedded part of linuxcnc
> and is not for the faint hearted .
>
>
>
> On 25 December 2015 at 21:07, Neil Whelchel  wrote:
>
>> Hello Brian,
>> At the moment, the interface, and some OS integration are the places that I
>> feel need the most attention.
>> The interface needs tools to mount external (USB) devices and manage files
>> as well as make backups and control the OS (shutdown, reboot...).  Another
>> very important thing is that there should be some sort of a toolset
>> database. The flat tool file is a thing of the past. There needs to be a
>> way of associating part programs with specific sets of tools. Often, when I
>> setup a new part, I empty the tool changer and reload it with tools for
>> that job. Later, when I switch back to run more of the previous part, I
>> have to copy the previous tool file back. While this is easy, it can not be
>> done with any existing UI, and this is typical of the problems that the
>> existing UIs have.
>> At the moment, I see no need for a custom kernel or anything like that, but
>> it will eventually end up there. We have to start with the lowest hanging
>> fruit to do the most good in the least time, so starting with the intent to
>> make an 'embedded' like UI is by far the lowest fruit.
>> I will setup a public repository with what I have so far.
>> -Neil-
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Brian  wrote:
>>
>>> I'll throw my hat in the ring for a more embedded, dedicated
>>> appearing/functioning interface.  I think such an option would make LCNC
>> a
>>> more viable option for real, commercial application.
>>>
>>> This could be anything from a configuration option or GUI, to a full
>> blown
>>> dedicated kernel or anything in between.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that Tormach has already started down this path with Path
>>> Pilot.  Although I have never actually seen it, from what I hear, it
>> makes
>>> accessing the desktop and other PC functionality not functional or not
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Emc-developers mailing list
>> Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
>>
>
>


--
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers