Help please !!! Servo configuration with stepconf.

Yes, the position commands would be part of the G-code.

Thanks andypugh

I have a question that if I generate g-code from third party CAM software for milling, it needs to be modify ?

ishman wrote:

Yes, the position commands would be part of the G-code.

I have a question that if I generate g-code from third party CAM software for milling, it needs to be modify ?

I don't think there is any CAM software which handles more than 9 axes (in fact more than 5 axes would be unusual), so you would have to modify the code, yes.
For actuators such as part loaders/unloaders the required G-code would probably be inserted as part of a pre-defined pre-amble and tidy-up code configured into the CAM software.

If we consider simplicity then IMO if g-code needs to be modified manually for more then 5axis (As I have only 5axis CAM) then it's a better and fastest solution to leave the milling job only to LinuxCNC. In this case you can directly import G-code from any CAM without hassle and keep it running without any further modification.

And simultaneously leave another jobs to external PLC. And let's program it separately with Ladder logic and HMI. Which I have already planned.

Let me take advice from you people that if I go for the setup as I planned then with Mitsubishi Q series PLC, I can make 100's of slow moving closed loop axis directly from the IO as it can count encoder pulses very fast and you don't need to have high speed counter for roughly upto 1000pps. And we don't need servos for this purpose as a basic VFD and an induction motor can do these kind of jobs very well.

Second reason is that I can run one PLC throughout my Factory to control these kind of axis in future as I have planning to increase the number of machineries after this one.

Third reason is that it will have separate manual control panel as well for clamping, swapping, placement ect. and these stuff will be done by operators and I have to train them for one thing to run and troubleshoot (which is really easy in case of PLC) and not for entire CNC and g-code.

there may be many misconception about my conclusion as I don't have any experience with CNC. I appreciate your comments. Please.

ishman wrote:

If we consider simplicity then IMO if g-code needs to be modified manually for more then 5axis (As I have only 5axis CAM) then it's a better and fastest solution to leave the milling job only to LinuxCNC.

It is easier to integrate the CNC and general automation tasks if they are both in LinuxCNC. However, if you want to integrate the automation between different machines then it is probably easier outside LinuxCNC.

ie, I can imagine a master PLC starting multiple LinuxCNC machining centres in a sequence, and in that situation an external PLC makes sense.

There is no reason that you can't consider having both hardware and software PLCs, of course, at different layers in the structure.

The HAL pins exist for individual LinuxCNC instances to report-out their run/stop/pause/auto state to external hardware or to other instances of LinuxCNC, but to be honest separate LinuxCNC instances are not particularly well designed for inter-operation. This is not to say that it can't be done, but it has never been a design requirement.

Note that it is entirely possible to have custom onscreen control panels interacting with software or hardware PLCs entirely separate from the CNC / G-code. The realtime system can run CNC and Classic Ladder (or HAL components, or userspace software) all in parallel.

Personally I would probably start with one PC running LinuxCNC and Classic Ladder, and have that Classic Ladder structure control other LinuxCNC instances as they were added. However that is mainly because I know my way around LinuxCNC/RTAI. if you are more comfortable with PLCs then you might be happier working another way. The only advantage of the Soft PLC is cost, and that there is no reason to use physical IO to communicate between PLC and CNC sections (until other external CNC controllers are added)

With Mesa hardware it is possible to add up to 1536 IO lines per PCI port and control them from LinuxCNC / Classic Ladder.

Note that it is entirely possible to have custom onscreen control panels interacting with software or hardware PLCs entirely separate from the CNC / G-code. The realtime system can run CNC and Classic Ladder (or HAL components, or userspace software) all in parallel.

Here it's the real money saver IMO. Because Mitsubishi HMI components are not cheap and will cost thousands.

Personally I would probably start with one PC running LinuxCNC and Classic Ladder

I am also starting with this. Maybe I am afraid just because of lack of experience with Classicladder. But after some practice with Classicladder, it would be clear to decide in better way. I asked myself many times that are you biased about the system which you can handle and program ? Why don't you try Classicladder. Because in long run simplicity and low cost always wins.

I started with the suggestions people gave me yesterday and tried to tune my drive with motor internally. First I tried to jog the motor from drive. They have manual how to jog the motor from drive directly. But I am struck that it started to give me an error every time which means "torque overloaded". I asked the supplier about this and still waiting for their response.