Standardization of LinuxCNC outputs to a Standard Motion Control Board enabling interfaceing to all standard +-10VDC servo amps and encoders would be nice to have to aid the implementation process. See attached started block diagram.
This basically isolates development into the software component, trajectory planning, etc and the external hardware implementation of a standard motion control board that simply OUTPUTS an axis servo amplifier drive voltage _+10VDC or pulse stream, The board also accepts encoder feedback. (can close the loop) Pretty simple and straight forward to implement and understand. Suggest 5 axis board.
The users simply plugs the motion control board outputs into the servo amp drive and connects motor encoder feedback cables.
The motion control board is fed axis data via an Ethernet (Ethercat) cable from the LinuxCNC PC.
Vendors can make these boards to LINUXCNC SPECIFICATIONS, these specifications basically define the input and output.
And yes a few I/Os are also needed to operate tool changes, coolant, spindle VFD drive 0-10V etc.
THIS APPROACH WILL GREATLY IMPROVE THE USABILITY AND ADOPTION OF THE LINUXCNC WORK.
Of course a nice well written documentation on the software and hardware implementation would be enlightening to the user community.
_____________________-
Looking at Mach 3 Mach 4 its not clear what hardware works with it? same problem.
Forgot to say then the focus could be on the GUI users interface with an objective of making the worlds most user friendly (OPERATOR FRIENDLY) interface. OPERATOR FRIENDLY IS BIG
jpettit wrote: Standardization of LinuxCNC outputs to a Standard Motion Control Board enabling interfaceing to all standard +-10VDC servo amps and encoders would be nice to have to aid the implementation process
Are you suggesting that every hardware driver should export exactly the same HAL pin names?
Whilst I can see that this would have been a good thing to do at the beginning, it would be a very destructive change to make now, as it would break every existing configuration.
Thanks for the insight. I know nothing about the Pin outs thanks. I am Just trying to simplify the design and understand the system.
My idea is to isolate the development PROCESS into 2 sections: 1 software, and 2 hardware development. My personal belief is the users interface is where the effort should be placed to improve the USER'S EXPERIENCE. If the users love it--IT BECOMES WIDELY ACCEPTED.
Furthermore I have installed Mach3, Machmotion, centroid/AjaxCNC and been looking at Mach4. Most of these solutions are real light on providing details. It seems to take forever to get a understanding on how it works. I think it's more than me being stupid. I have no idea how the trajectory planner works, look ahead, what goes on in the motion board. Timing of the axis not clear. I would say the documentation is really light on the THEORY OF OPERATION and at the end of the day FOLKS have a lot of trouble implementing it. A general clean up would be great for newbees like me. I can be reached at shop@strategic-services.com Jim
For pin name commonality, hal's alias function could be used so
fairly standard hal file boilerplate could be common for different hardware
(with the hardware manufacturer supplying the alias file)
