Why real time kernel is needed with board like MESA?

Okay, buffering movement from one corner to the other is not an issue, and wouldn't require real time kernel. Or really any of the things people do with their first cnc when they start out like setting height with a piece of paper and using an edge finder, etc... Even cutting out whole parts.... But "more advanced (still basic)" items like homing a gantry with 2 switches and up (in complication) are what require the real time kernel to be able to be aware of changes and adjust accordingly. Got it.

Thanks PCW!

I guess the main difference with boards like the Smooth stepper is that they are the motion controller where Linuxcnc is the motion controller so as PCW says it has much more processing power than any external motion card. The power it gets with Mesa stepgens is that Lincuxcnc tells the Mesa board to generate steps at a specific frequency until its told otherwise. And Linuxcnc can change that commanded frequency every millisecond. So buffering command wold reduce the responsiveness of the whole system.

Plus the ability Linuxcnc has as the motion controller to insert custom components into the servo thread so that it operates as if its part of the Linuxcnc core is just amazing architecture. This is LinuxCNC's best kept secret if you can code in C. Just look at the plasmac component which when combined with custom Python scripting and matching GUI interface is going to send many plasma THC manufacturers to the wall. Its that good!

I think this is one of LinuxCNCs greatest strengths, It provides an accessible and extensible
real time toolkit on an open platform allowing collaborative development of complex real time control solutions ( is that enough buzzwords? )

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right to look for logic - why does LinuxCNC have real time after it has a Mesa card?
The answer is simple - because LinuxCNC is not evolving to use the available hardware. Meats are also not interested in such development, they just make money!
Otherwise, FPGA can do perfectly the critical part of the job - real time and work with inputs and outputs. You just have to tell her exactly what you want!
What's worse is that people who are really involved in the development of the Linux CNC don't really understand what it should look like in order to be liked by people, not just themselves.

PP And I do not agree at all with the reasoning, how can LinuxCNC not work with a buffer because it had to change the pulse frequency every 1 ms. What are you talking about? Why, once you have planned your movement and have the ability to set whatever pulse sequence you want to the FPGA, will you change it in motion? The FPGA can perform vector control or PID or C curve or whatever you choose from measuring rulers without dealing with LinuxCNC). Even part of the PLC logic will naturally be transferred to FPGA (I accidentally wrote in another topic that branded CNCs are PLC / FPGA). Thus, the problems with THC will be able to be solved successfully. Simply the FPGA will be set parameters with which, following the feedback (arc voltage) it will react with the Z axis.
All the while, you forget that a $ 2 Arduino can play (not quite successfully, of course) the role of FPGA and run a 12-hour file, while on the PC that sends it the code, you browse YouTube.

stivemaster13 wrote: The answer is simple - because LinuxCNC is not evolving to use the available hardware. Meats are also not interested in such development, they just make money!
Otherwise, FPGA can do perfectly the critical part of the job - real time and work with inputs and outputs. You just have to tell her exactly what you want!
What's worse is that people who are really involved in the development of the Linux CNC don't really understand what it should look like in order to be liked by people, not just themselves.

I dont understand you. Maybe its a language barrier but why do you keep pointing out that the way LinuxCNC does things is wrong? Are you trolling?, trying to stir up the people on this forum?

If you dont want to use LinuxCNC, I am sure MachineKit or Mach3/4 or UCCNC or a MASSO controller will do what you want. Otherwise design your own proprietary hardware and software like every other business and try to sell it.

They all know how to "do it better", but when push comes to shove, meh.

stivemaster13 lets see a viable prototype of what you propose. Then it can be proved one way or the other which is better.

I honestly think if Mesa were just interested in "making money" we wouldn't get the support we do through the forum. Go thru the forum and see how many times people have asked for a bit file to have this or have that and it's been provided.