Greetings;
I had another crash yesterday morning as I was quiting linuxcnc, from the
pulldown menu, while I was ssh -Y'd into the machine. It did not auto
reboot, so I went out and held the reset button down for a few seconds.
It did an fsck (apparently clean) on the reboot, then did a full
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Michael Haberler wrote:
motion has an issue with ferror calculation:
I've studied this some more and disagree with the change, and I have
a different, much simpler change that I propose instead. I've
pushed this to pid-ferror-fix-try2
Currently,
On 01/12/2013 11:46 AM, Chris Radek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Michael Haberler wrote:
motion has an issue with ferror calculation:
I've studied this some more and disagree with the change, and I have
a different, much simpler change that I propose instead. I've
pushed
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 08:00:49PM +, andy pugh wrote:
Doesn't this mean that there is no PID output for the first servo
period after a setpoint change?
Hmm yeah, it does seem like it will add a period's delay.
Does pid need to keep track of both kinds of error? Report to
motion its
let's stand back a bit
what we're really doing is forcing one component to accommodate the other, and
vice versa, and both approaches have side effects; maybe the whole ferror thing
is done in the wrong place to start with
what's ferror is actually about? AFAICT it serves really a single
On 01/12/2013 12:46 PM, Chris Radek wrote:
OK, that is the problem as I understand it. There are two ways to
approach the fix.
I agree with your analysis, and also michael's.
In the new branch I've reverted this fix, which I think is mistaken,
and changed pid to use the previous target
On 12 January 2013 20:53, Michael Haberler mai...@mah.priv.at wrote:
what's ferror is actually about? AFAICT it serves really a single purpose,
namely triggering a 'following error' condition if it gets too large.
Indeed. And for tuning the PID loop you probably want to look at the
PID error
On Saturday 12 January 2013 17:28:23 Chris Radek did opine:
Message additions Copyright Saturday 12 January 2013 by Gene Heskett
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Michael Haberler wrote:
motion has an issue with ferror calculation:
I've studied this some more and disagree with the
Check the smart data for your HD - this sound like what happened with
the KT when the HD was going bad.
sam
On 01/12/2013 10:00 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I had another crash yesterday morning as I was quiting linuxcnc, from the
pulldown menu, while I was ssh -Y'd into the machine.
this theme is quite complex, and anybody interested might have a look at the
ensuing discussion:
http://emc.mah.priv.at/irc/%23linuxcnc-devel/2013-01-12.html#18:46:00
I think the core of the issue revolves around a unclear definition of 'ferror',
which makes everybody fill in his favorite
On Jan 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2013 00:08, Peter Jensen jensen_rem...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Rockhopper_Web_Server
I only just got round to looking at this.
It's fairly cool.
However, what surprised me
As Tom said, the limitation in the automatic HAL graph is the size/complexity
of the HAL file. I bet for most people, this will be a big help, so I'm happy
with that. It sure works great on the sample config, and on the configuration
in one of Tom's machines here at the shop. But for larger
12 matches
Mail list logo
