parametric blending path

Todd Zuercher wrote: It is a lot of work to integrate it, and probably why it hasn't been done. But if someone were to make it work, I have a few of machines I'd love to try it out on, but for the work we do the new trajectory planner is more important to reducing run-times.

I see araisrobot git repository ... but I thought it contained something newer ...
Sorry not understand: "but for the work we do the new trajectory planner is more important to reducing run-times." ... the new trajectory planning is faster then older one or more slow than older?? (I'm sorry it's because my English is not very good...)

Regards
giorgio

The old planner only had 1 line of look ahead, meaning that it would limit velocity to an amount that the machine could come to a complete stop by the end of the next g-code line.

The new planner looks and plans the velocity to follow the path multiple lines ahead, so that the length of the next line segment(s) are not the limiting factor of the machines velocity.

This can make a huge difference in machining time for complex CAM generated code. I have files that the machining time was reduced to 1/3 the time on our machine with the new vs old planner.

ok I understand these .... thank for info ...

Really I note these in complex moving cicle of my robot and in some particular gcode file on my printer ... sometime is impossible make some gcode trick because Lcnc He had to read and execute the last line before performing the magic code ... so the magic code always worked in half .....

I hope these work in complex and long cam-gcode as with my gcode trick ....for example with the old trajectory planning ( what I'm still using it ) if I put a condition with variables from a hal file is impossible that LCNC execute the trajectory in exactly the same way as would perform if the condition were not there (normally these situation perform with G64 ...) .... I think this depends on the fact that the condition inserts a row that is not a trajectory .... from what you say the new trajectory planning should have passed this thing ....

regards
Giorgio