Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On Monday, March 05, 2012 02:12:58 PM Chris Radek did opine: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:05:02PM -0600, sam sokolik wrote: > > http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.5/html/gui/axis.html#_axis_preview_control > > > > (AXIS,stop) Stops the preview from here to the end of the file. > > Thanks Sam, I thin

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On Monday, March 05, 2012 02:00:43 PM charles green did opine: > fine example of the shortcomings of a doitall pc tyrant vs a dedicated > machine controller. > > the axis simulation should be reserved for the purpose of simulation > exclusively. > You may be right, but it is still handier than b

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:05:02PM -0600, sam sokolik wrote: > http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.5/html/gui/axis.html#_axis_preview_control > > (AXIS,stop) Stops the preview from here to the end of the file. Thanks Sam, I think this is really the answer in this case. You can even have a program th

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

eskett >> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy! >> To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> Date: Sunday, March 4, 2012, 11:52 PM >> On Monday, March 05, 2012 02:44:35 AM >> Sebastian Kuzminsky did opine: >> >>> On 03/04/2012

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

fine example of the shortcomings of a doitall pc tyrant vs a dedicated machine controller. the axis simulation should be reserved for the purpose of simulation exclusively. --- On Sun, 3/4/12, gene heskett wrote: > From: gene heskett > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On Monday, March 05, 2012 02:44:35 AM Sebastian Kuzminsky did opine: > On 03/04/2012 09:20 PM, gene heskett wrote: > > The code, if someone wants to tell me what is wrong, (& there no > > doubt is lots wrong) is at: > > > > >

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On 03/04/2012 09:20 PM, gene heskett wrote: > The code, if someone wants to tell me what is wrong, (& there no doubt is > lots wrong) is at: > > This program is slow to load because it contains a very large number of g-code c

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

On Monday, March 05, 2012 01:40:44 AM Jon Elson did opine: > gene heskett wrote: > > Amateur that I am, it appears that I have managed to concoct a small, > > nominally 50 line program, that brings linuxcnc to a virtual halt, > > about 7 minutes just to load and scan it. Keyboard response once it

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

Monday, 5 March 2012 3:20 PM > To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy! > > Amateur that I am, it appears that I have managed to concoct a small, > nominally 50 line program, that brings linuxcnc to a virtual halt, a

Re: [Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

gene heskett wrote: > Amateur that I am, it appears that I have managed to concoct a small, > nominally 50 line program, that brings linuxcnc to a virtual halt, about 7 > minutes just to load and scan it. Keyboard response once it is loaded & > ready to run, can be 10 to 90 seconds, with gkrell

[Emc-users] Bringing linuxcnc to its knees, begging for mercy!

Amateur that I am, it appears that I have managed to concoct a small, nominally 50 line program, that brings linuxcnc to a virtual halt, about 7 minutes just to load and scan it. Keyboard response once it is loaded & ready to run, can be 10 to 90 seconds, with gkrellm showing cpu0 at 100%. But