New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
- tommylight
-
- Online
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 20005
- Thank you received: 6796
21 Jun 2014 01:28 #48147
by tommylight
Thank you very much, i will give it a try although during normal usage it does not matter at all. it works perfectly, did a lot of cutting today without a hitch. Will continue to use it and fidle with it every day and report back if i find anything.
Respekt,
Tom
Replied by tommylight on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
Also noticed that when i switch from Joint Mode to World Mode, the max velocity set in .ini file does not aply anymore, it will move above the set speed..
It is possible that you would find better behaviour in the Joint_Axes5 branch, which will probably be merged into master in the not-too-distant future. This separates the concepts of axis limits and joint limits.
However, it may be that you just need to specify a [TRAJ] MAX_VELOCITY as well as the individual [AXIS] limits.
Thank you very much, i will give it a try although during normal usage it does not matter at all. it works perfectly, did a lot of cutting today without a hitch. Will continue to use it and fidle with it every day and report back if i find anything.
Respekt,
Tom
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- JZHA1985
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 76
- Thank you received: 3
21 Jun 2014 02:28 #48148
by JZHA1985
Replied by JZHA1985 on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
The new TP has changed a lot for me as all my parts are better quality, and take roughly half the time to make. If it were to exist a year ago, and cost a few hundred dollars I would have bought it since it's that useful.
Now everything goes so fast jerk comes into play. I'd love to see a Kickstarter or some sort of pool for donations to entice somebody to get jerk worked into the TP. I don't know the policies of so forth so consider the fund raising just a suggestion...
Now everything goes so fast jerk comes into play. I'd love to see a Kickstarter or some sort of pool for donations to entice somebody to get jerk worked into the TP. I don't know the policies of so forth so consider the fund raising just a suggestion...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Todd Zuercher
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4984
- Thank you received: 1453
21 Jun 2014 03:16 #48149
by Todd Zuercher
Replied by Todd Zuercher on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
I agree, the higher speeds are making jerk more of an issue for me as well. (especially on the wet noodle of a machine I'm working with). I wonder if the old parabolic blending introduced a form of jerk control (besides just making it slow) that may have been helping to smooth some of my machines faults, that the circular blending is uncovering.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tommylight
-
- Online
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 20005
- Thank you received: 6796
21 Jun 2014 04:39 #48150
by tommylight
Replied by tommylight on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
Hmmmm last 2 post are interesting to me since i have a lot LESS of jerking and way smoother corners and especialy much much smoother arcs, then again i cut at 2000mm/minute minimumall the way to 5400mm/minute. I also use at least 500mm/s acceleration.
Again nice to see people using it and reporting here about their findings.
Tom
Again nice to see people using it and reporting here about their findings.
Tom
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Todd Zuercher
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4984
- Thank you received: 1453
21 Jun 2014 09:15 #48154
by Todd Zuercher
Replied by Todd Zuercher on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
I am cutting at similar feeds 50-100 inches/min, but with much more pathetic accelerations. With the old planner I had the acceleration at 7 inches/ss. With the new planner I've had to back it off to 6 inches/ss. But even with the reduced acceleration, I am still seeing nearly a 20% improvement in run time.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- skunkworks
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 363
- Thank you received: 154
21 Jun 2014 09:35 #48155
by skunkworks
Replied by skunkworks on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
we actually tried the new tp on the K&T a few weekends ago.. The acc is around 10-15in/s^2..
with the old planner - the motion was pretty tame.. With the new planner you could feel it in the floor...
There is some work on s-curve planner - but I think it is a long way from anything viable.. (it only does exact stop and has some constraint violations issues..)
the branch is araisrobo-scurve2 in the linuxcnc.org git.
sam
with the old planner - the motion was pretty tame.. With the new planner you could feel it in the floor...
There is some work on s-curve planner - but I think it is a long way from anything viable.. (it only does exact stop and has some constraint violations issues..)
the branch is araisrobo-scurve2 in the linuxcnc.org git.
sam
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- DaBit
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 446
- Thank you received: 35
21 Jun 2014 15:09 #48157
by DaBit
Replied by DaBit on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
If the old TP slows down before entering a curve and then gently follows the curve at lower speed because it cannot go back to high speed instantly, there would be less 'shake'. Changing the direction of a moving mass needs a force, with higher cornering speed there is more force, and action = - reaction.
In my case the shake and shudder is less, especially when trying to obtain the same runtime for a program as with 2.5.4 (that needs more than twice the acceleration or a very relaxed G64Pxx).. I am still on 2.6.0~pre RC3 from some time ago though.
Here is a small vid of the new milling-machine-to-be running a gazillion of segments:
Video is pretty bad and more toying around with a new photo camera, but in the end you can see that LinuxCNC is processing segments like crazy. With 2.5.4 runtime almost doubles and when cranking up the acceleration to shorten the runtime the shaking gets far worse.
BTW: when running programs with really short segments at high feeds cranking up the servo thread rate helps a little too.
In my case the shake and shudder is less, especially when trying to obtain the same runtime for a program as with 2.5.4 (that needs more than twice the acceleration or a very relaxed G64Pxx).. I am still on 2.6.0~pre RC3 from some time ago though.
Here is a small vid of the new milling-machine-to-be running a gazillion of segments:
Video is pretty bad and more toying around with a new photo camera, but in the end you can see that LinuxCNC is processing segments like crazy. With 2.5.4 runtime almost doubles and when cranking up the acceleration to shorten the runtime the shaking gets far worse.
BTW: when running programs with really short segments at high feeds cranking up the servo thread rate helps a little too.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- skunkworks
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 363
- Thank you received: 154
22 Jun 2014 10:37 #48175
by skunkworks
Replied by skunkworks on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
This is robs planner - combined to ja4 (needs some work)
the same section of code running the old planner..
sam
the same section of code running the old planner..
sam
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- JZHA1985
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 76
- Thank you received: 3
22 Jun 2014 11:29 - 22 Jun 2014 11:33 #48176
by JZHA1985
Replied by JZHA1985 on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
When I mean there is jerk, I don't mean the jerk you find when you cut out a circle with thousands of lines of GCode. I find jerk in the sense that you have a lot of mass that you're stopping and starting too rapidly, thus you get the shaking of the machine. Now you can just reduce acceleration, but from the videos I see from the TinyG controller perhaps jerk in a constraint/mathematical sense might help us.
Keep in mind I don't enjoy higher math, and am just an end user
Anyways overall the new TP is past excellent when you constrain your maximum feedrate and consequently the resulting jerk. I get a lot faster feedrates, and it's far less variable so I am very happy.
Keep in mind I don't enjoy higher math, and am just an end user

Anyways overall the new TP is past excellent when you constrain your maximum feedrate and consequently the resulting jerk. I get a lot faster feedrates, and it's far less variable so I am very happy.
Last edit: 22 Jun 2014 11:33 by JZHA1985.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tommylight
-
- Online
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 20005
- Thank you received: 6796
28 Jun 2014 17:17 #48295
by tommylight
Replied by tommylight on topic New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted
Found another minor hickup, when i stop the execution of a part and continue with "run from here" it ignores the "g64 p0.1 q0.1" that is at the begining of gcode, and it defaults to something like q5 as itnormaly does if no g64 command is issued. So i have to issue an MDI command of g64 p0.1 q0.1 before the "run from here" command.
Otherwise it is for all intents and purposes working flawlessly.
Tom
Otherwise it is for all intents and purposes working flawlessly.
Tom
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 2.334 seconds