Advanced Search

endian wrote:

I tested it with Nidec N753(it has 0x60B1 avaible - but i did not implement the offset yet), Kollmorgen S343, Kollmorgen S7xx, Pilz pmcTendo, Beckhoff AX5106 hw2(https://codeberg.org/endian/Beckhoff_AX5ZYZZ_lcec_driver - here is working driver for AX5YZZ drivers with sercos.comp which is very similar to dominik cia's but only for AX with external trapeziodal homing based of high speed probing hw-input outside of master[lower cycle time at fpga]), Beckhoff el7221 and I will test it with @zmrdko's Delta ASDA drivers too ...

pictures shows like that solution synchronize of timing lag of position mode of ethercat

Can you show the same test at same velocity with compensation on and off? The two pictures are at very different speeds so it's hard to see what the compensation is actually doing.

A little bit off topic, but a cool experiment with multihead touchscreen


the camjog plugin:
youtube.com/shorts/pnibjyDy1ZI

For what it's worth, I've used $200 to $400 USD mini-pc's with way worse latency than this with ethercat and Mesa card setups and never bothered optimizing for latency. It seems to work great.

I like this better. I went in the bios and changed cpu power limit back from 10W to the default 35W "performance" setting.

Now it's bogging down. Toward the end I had to close some stuff so I could get screenshot to open. Boy, this thing is really throttling down.

Oh No! now I remember, a bit ago I was running this thing on a power tool battery+inverter , so I had changed the power limit in bios as low as it can be set! I will try one more time.

grandixximo wrote:

@endian I discussed this with YangYang who attends the EtherCAT consortium meetings. AitalMAC is part of the consortium and we design I/O for EtherCAT, so we're not guessing here.
The standard already solves this problem. You don't need pos(t+1).
The 1 cycle delay is real, but it's identical for all axes. With Distributed Clocks everything executes on the same SYNC edge, synchronized to ~100ns. Every axis is "late" by the same amount, so the path shape is correct. Calculate it last week, execute it this week, the part is the same.
The CiA 402 standard provides feedforward objects exactly for this: 0x60B1 (velocity offset) and 0x60B2 (torque offset). The master can send position plus velocity feedforward so the drive can anticipate acceleration. This is the standard's solution, it just needs to be mapped in lcec.
Also, good drives interpolate internally. The servo loop runs faster than the bus cycle (Maxon runs 0.4ms internal vs 1ms bus). The drive doesn't jump between positions, it interpolates. That's what 0x60C2 configures.
If you're seeing ferror correlate with velocity in halscope, that's likely a display artifact. The ferror compares "commanded from 1 cycle ago" with "actual now", so it shows an offset proportional to velocity. It's not a real machining error.
What does your actual part surface look like? Any real deviation you can measure?
 
I think not every hardware has 0x60B1:01 in the accessible PDOs and not everyone can use unsynchronized SDO to change during OP ... therefore I am high-lighing it before job is done ... I have working with 16 different brands of servodrivers based on ethercat and just one it has(nidec control techniques) ... What I know from TC3 this is solved by NC stuff computing for the each single axis ... 

I do not want to talk about ethercat here .. we have separate space, but in reality it is lagging 2cycles because at hardare layer it writes command first and then it reads the slave status... then next cycle it write command by last status and then cycle it reach real status datas ... (Martin Rostan (Chairman ETG group) - when I was with him at last time at conference in Bratislava)

SDO 0x60C2 is configuring the timing of internal stuff of interpolationn of synchronized movement by subindex 01 and 02 .. most drivers it has to have it at same time of master command tick but we knows some which do not as Beckhoff AX5 series 

I am at second computer and I will update picture later this weel but during movement in 15m/s it can produce lag of 0.2mm with timing 250us ... which sound terrible 0

I did compensation component which add posCmd = position command + compensation during vcommand != 0 and every lag was gone ... it was purely for testing but solution is clear

positionOutputCompensated = positionOutput;
            
            if(fabs(vel_cmd) > 0.001)
            {
                double leadCycleLocal = lead_cycles;
                
                const double Ts = periodTime;
                const int    L  = (leadCycleLocal < 1) ? 1 : leadCycleLocal;
                const double LTs = (double)L * Ts;
                

                
                double lead = (vel_cmd * LTs) + (0.5 * acc_cmd * LTs * LTs);
                
                double ferr;
                ferr = (positionOutput - pos_fb_from_incremental);
                
                double comp = (kff * lead) + (k_err * ferr);
                posCompensation = comp;
            
                if(fabs(ferr) > fabs(fErrorOld) || fTopError == 0.0)
                {
                    fErrorOld = ferr;
                    fTopError = fErrorOld;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                posCompensation = 0;
            }
        
        positionOutputCompensated = positionOutput + posCompensation;
        
        if(ui_delayFinal > 0)
        {
            positionOutputCompensated = positionOutput;
            ui_delayFinal--;
        }
        
        //drv_target_position_incremental = (int32_t)(positionOutput * pos_scale * incremental_pos_scale);

        drv_target_position_incremental = (int32_t)(positionOutputCompensated * pos_scale * incremental_pos_scale);
 

 I think I understand better now, good to know this issue exists. When I get to Phase 5 testing at 250µs, I might see this show up as following error that isn't the planner's fault.I will bookmark this for later, is you compensation component available to test with?

 

 

I tested it with Nidec N753(it has 0x60B1 avaible - but i did not implement the offset yet), Kollmorgen S343, Kollmorgen S7xx, Pilz pmcTendo, Beckhoff AX5106 hw2(codeberg.org/endian/Beckhoff_AX5ZYZZ_lcec_driver - here is working driver for AX5YZZ drivers with sercos.comp which is very similar to dominik cia's but only for AX with external trapeziodal homing based of high speed probing hw-input outside of master[lower cycle time at fpga]), Beckhoff el7221 and I will test it with @zmrdko's Delta ASDA drivers too ...

pictures shows like that solution synchronize of timing lag of position mode of ethercat

More screenshots; for the first run I left it running for a bit without teasing it much. Then I restarted the test and let it run a bit, occationally taking a screenshot, then opening more apps.

Wow, I just noticed the load average numbers in btop. I was noticing how glxgears is not showing a lot of cpu usage, now I notice it showing up in the load average. I will go back and find out what it takes to bump that load average over 16! I will post it.

When I'm building something like LinuxCNC from source I make sure I have the build terminal and btop open so I can watch it rip! Especially on the 10yr old server with two Xeon 14 core CPU's = 56 threads.

Yes, setting those ini variables fixed the issue.

Even at 10000 feed override (which showed on the screen as 0000)
 

Is restoring a 7i76 by externally reprogramming the dsPIC with the proper 7I76R14 image theoretically possible

If recovery requires a Mesa-provided programming image or process, is there any form of guidance or support you can offer? I fully understand if this is not something Mesa can support or disclose.

PCW wrote:

I still get this at 100% feed override:

 

The ini file

 

File Attachment:

File Name: 7i96s-1kio.ini
File Size:7 KB

(I set ini.traj_planner_type =1 by hand before starting)

 

please see this, I have fixed the INI, we will fix code a bit so that we can support your original configuration as well, the issue was/is max_jerk in traj was set to 0, which is the default, but actually should not be allowed.

Old mate was specifically asking about the RPi images, this is one of 2 threads where the subject was raised. And yeah I got a bit pissed.

After this comment:

Thank you for your response, and also for your subtle sarcasm in calling me ignorant every time I comment or ask for help in the threads you also participate in.

But I'm not anymore. The stress has been deleted.

Building  the bin files basically amounts to:

installing the Efinity too chain

unzipping the Mesa source for the particular card in to Efinitys project directory

Creating the desired pinout file for a particular configuration
(mainly a copy-past operation from existing pinout files)

adding the new pinout file to the project

including the new pinout file in the top level source

build

Note that I included the pinout source for the 7I95T  XY2-100 configuration

You will need to boot from a USB on the PC you want to make an image of, any Linux should do, and use DD to make an image of the existing drive.
You need to be very careful with DD and exact naming of the input and output drive (named file in DD), and use fdisk to find out those exact names.
That is quite some steps and many ways to mess things up, subsequently end up with a useless system.
Only after you start dealing with all of the above you can know exactly how hard it is to advise anyone about it.
-
A bit easier way is to download and write to a USB CloneZilla, then boot from it and use the limited GUI included with it, again being careful when choosing the source and destination drives.
-
Both ways above will require having the same exact space as the source drive for the destination, or bigger.

I still get this at 100% feed override:

 

The ini file

 

(I set ini.traj_planner_type =1 by hand before starting)
 

ruediger123 wrote:

@grandixximo

During further testing, I noticed the following:

A sudden drop in jerkiness during acceleration build-up and deceleration, and a jerk greater than zero where there should be no jerkiness (red circles).
Cause?
tp.c
line 2836
"int need_decel = (margin <= TP_POS_EPSILON) || (dx - moveL <= dlen2);"

A brief exceedance of the maximum jerk value when acceleration ends (blue circles).
Cause?
sp_curve.c
lines 490 to 499
"if ((deltaV < 0 && targetV < v && v + deltaV < targetV) ||
      (0 < deltaV && v < targetV && targetV < v + deltaV)) {
    //nextA = (targetV - v) / t;
    nextA = 2.0 * (targetV - v) / t - a;
    if(nextA >= maxA){
      nextA = maxA;
      targetV = (a + nextA) * t / 2.0;
    }
    //printf("############################  FIXED nextA to be:  %.14f \n", nextA);
    v = targetV;"


I cannot say what is incorrect in the previous calculations.

gruß
Rüdiger
 

Did you test this? you have a patch we can look at? YangYang said those are both necessary, did you see what happens if you remove/fix the code you referencing as the causes?