Advanced Search

As per the title, I'm wondering how a tool head will move when the active coordiante system is rotated via G10 L2 R- and a G2/G3 command is issued. Specifically because the docs say "The axis of the circle or helix must be parallel to the X, Y, or Z axis of the machine coordinate system." 

Case active plane = XY: this would seem to be the easieast to handle, but just to check, are I and J rotated to represent deviations in the rotated coordinate system or no?

Case active plane includes Z: this is trickier, because both options present apparent trouble. If the arc's axis is in the macine plane, say XZ, it seems to be impossible to use G2/3 in such a plane with a rotated coordinate system as the post-processor can't account for it and the tool would take a path different than desired. On the other hand, having the arc be in the X'Z plane (rotated), respects the path desired by the postprocessor but seems to be in contradiction with the docs.

I don't have a LinuxCNC machine installed so I can't do the practical experiment myself (I'm actually about to build a machine and I'm trying to understand the pros/cons of each system). Thanks in advance!

@langdons and unknown
I'm getting tired of this. I just deleted several of your posts that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Yes, the sample file is set for a 10.10.10.10 IP address
if you are using 192.168.1.121, you will get that error
 

Is the networking set up for Mesa?
Is the IP address on the board set same as in the config?

Stick to 2.9.4 for the time being, some issues have arisen, no doubt they will be rectified in a timely manner.

Elaborating on the Lenovo thing, whilst a parallel port in provided, it requires a Lenovo header cable. From what I can gather the cable uses some pin or pins to enable the parallel on what was onced referred to the SuperIO chip. Without this cable the parallel port is neither seem in the bios setup nor the Linux hardware probe. With the cable everything is fine.
Some basically testing on an old parallel port 3rd gen I5 proved it to be a suitable candidate.
But it all comes down to local availability, resellers or what you can find on the street.

The mesa website has a manual for each and every board, so that should give you enough with what you can do with mesa ethernet, a base card is very easily extended via smart serial cards. The access at register level is documented in each manual.
While obtaining mesa hardware outside of the US due to postage, it can almost double the price for items coming Down Under they are solid and reliable and very well supported

As long as network latency isn't impacted theoretically it may work.
The RPi will suffer somewhat if you require the use of a base thread for some input requirement. Personally I think an SPI for simplicity a 7c81, which is simple to replicate using off the shelf Spartan 6 Dev boards, maybe a better option for IO.

Houston !!! i have a problem!!! 

Thank you very much!!!!!

JacobRush wrote:

tagged on the PC ethernet port with subinterfaces (or however linux does it these days its been a minute) and exposing those segments as untagged to the devices.
 

That's what I figured.

If I were to run LinuxCNC on a raspberry pi (whatever variant), I could potentially handle the UI (buttons, maybe some LEDs, the MPG) through the GPIO pins, and move the digital/analog I/O to ethercat devices, which would completely eliminate the Mesa hardware. That would still require ethercat on one VLAN and general purpose ethernet on another.

I might try it each way and see what works.

I have not actually tested it but I would think it would work just fine doing tagged on the PC ethernet port with subinterfaces (or however linux does it these days its been a minute) and exposing those segments as untagged to the devices. I don't think there is a way for the devices to even know its a vlan somewhere when hanging on an untagged port.

You'll need not-overlapping subnets on the vlans if you need IP connectivity over and above just ethernet frames.

Thanks for pointing out. I was using it with the vendor blobs, but when i tried Panthor I had the same. They changed a lot with the scheduling which made it not rt-friendly anymore.

It kept me busy for a while but I think it's working correctly now. glxinfo -B shows "Device: Mali-G610 (Panfrost) (0xffffffff)" and Chromium is with acceleration and 4k without frame dropping. I'll upload the patches there

Update: mpp can give huge spikes during seeking with YouTube, so it might be better to disable hardware video decoding. Or make a symlink with hw decoding for when you don't use your CNC and one with software decoding (still nod bad).
I'll see if it's fixable. install the libv4l-rkmpp package from the Google Drive.

Btw this forum is lately very difficult to reach.

drive.google.com/drive/folders/17WBVgRBA...4GUaGlhR?usp=sharing

 

One way would be to add limit switches and connect them just to the drive
leaving the home switches for LinuxCNC.

I'm planning a robot retrofit, which will use Ethercat servo drives, a mesa 7i94T (serving a 7i84U and 2x 7i73 boards), and an ethernet link to an existing Fanuc 31i-B5.

• I've read that ethercat can be run through a switch without difficulty, but I couldn't find anything regarding its behavior through a VLAN.
• I can't find any information on what one can actually do with mesa's ethernet links. I plan to connect some limit switches, discrete interfacing with the Fanuc 31i-B5, the user interface system, and some analog measurement through the mesa board set. Thus, it seems that real-time performance isn't critical.
• The link to the Fanuc 31i-B5 is ordinary switchable/routable ethernet with no special requirements. I plan to check the 31i-B5's operating mode and the state of certain R and X registers via FOCAS, but if that is delayed for a few hundred milliseconds I don't anticipate trouble.

Is it practical to use 3 VLANs and a managed switch to connect these sets of devices to a computer with one physical ethernet port, or should I add extra ethernet cards? I want to use COTS gear wherever possible.

Thanks a lot for your advice. It seems Dell Optiplex and HP Z series are well regarded. I'll follow your guidelines. It seems the safest way to go considering I have a working system. Not sure between version 2.9.4 or 2.9.5 considering I am using a parallel port.

Regards,

Routerworks