Ok, that makes sense. Could we safely fix the tool table size limitation by
increasing the NML buffer size? I've been playing around in simulation and
loaded a table of 200+ tools without incident. If the buffer size isn't a
performance issue, then it seems like we could get an arbitrarily big tool
All my effort in trying to get a test system going are in vain. Well at
least for now. I cannot buy a BBB in my country until the end of July
when the next shipments are expected. Tragic to say the least :(
On 2014-04-07 07:21, Marius Liebenberg wrote:
> Hi
> Does anyone know if it is possible t
Just a user/Operator chiming in. Although a larger tool table would be nice
I think we need to look at handling offsets with a separate table for Fixed/
tool geometry offsets and for wear/assignable offsets. My two cents...
Jeff Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Robert Ellenberg [mailto:
On 9 April 2014 19:38, Marius Liebenberg wrote:
> All my effort in trying to get a test system going are in vain. Well at
> least for now. I cannot buy a BBB in my country until the end of July
> when the next shipments are expected.
RS in the UK don't have any either, nor Farnell.
--
atp
If yo
I want to release 2.5.4 soon; there are some important fixes in
there. I'm aiming for around the 16th, a week from today.
In the past I've been asked to give a heads-up because sometimes
people know of a problem, but forget or get distracted until they
see a reminder... So that's this!
Here is
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:52:35 -0500
> From: ch...@timeguy.com
> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Emc-developers] I'm preparing for a 2.5 bugfix release
>
> I want to release 2.5.4 soon; there are some important fixes in
> there. I'm aiming for around the 16th, a week from
