Linux Mint - PlasmaC upgrade confusion

I believe if you change the servo thread to 2ms you have to change all the P values to half ie 500

Ok...I'm now in Mint 19.2 with kernel 4.19.106-rt44-lcnc and 2.8.0. Same problem of joint 3 following error (triggers on the arc out of the circle shown), irrespective of IPO cycle time of 1ms or 2ms (and I tried halving P). The halcmd tmax values are now lower though.

Since it's now a fresh install I'll double-check everything again, but it seems I'm back where I was (albeit less legacy to worry about).

I'm assuming I'm going to be very embarrassed by whatever the problem ends up being...

Is it worth me trying to use the 7i96 with the Realtek RTL8196/8110 PCI NIC?

Mud wrote: Ok...I'm now in Mint 19.2 with kernel 4.19.106-rt44-lcnc and 2.8.0. Same problem of joint 3 following error (triggers on the arc out of the circle shown), irrespective of IPO cycle time of 1ms or 2ms (and I tried halving P). The halcmd tmax values are now lower though.

Since it's now a fresh install I'll double-check everything again, but it seems I'm back where I was (albeit less legacy to worry about).

I'm assuming I'm going to be very embarrassed by whatever the problem ends up being...

Is it worth me trying to use the 7i96 with the Realtek RTL8196/8110 PCI NIC?

I have this EXACT same problem I get a Joint 3 following error at the end of a circle when I create them using conversational... I am guessing you made using the conversational? I never really connected the two, but I ran several jobs before and I dont get the error. So either this is an extreme coincidence, or this something to do with making holes using conversational.

This is when I saw the Z axis offset error crop back up again as well...

Yes, I have only hand-coded a square for a scribe test and made conversational circles thus far.

Well that is odd. Do the hand coded squares give the following error?

I think that code got nuked so I would have to rewrite it, but I don't think so...I ran it a few times in succession I believe.

phillc54 wrote: Well that is odd.

It's what made me look at the code, and see that Conversational holes only had M5 instead of M5 $0. I'm not sure if that could affect it or not? Maybe a place to start.

I have today and tomorrow to myself, I can toss the $0 in the same code and see if it goes away for some reason...

snowgoer540 wrote:

phillc54 wrote: Well that is odd.

It's what made me look at the code, and see that Conversational holes only had M5 instead of M5 $0. I'm not sure if that could affect it or not? Maybe a place to start.

I have today and tomorrow to myself, I can toss the $0 in the same code and see if it goes away for some reason...

I had that same thought myself. I can't see how it would make any difference, but you never know...
It's worth trying though.

This code also trips after it makes the square:

phillc54 wrote:

snowgoer540 wrote:

phillc54 wrote: Well that is odd.

It's what made me look at the code, and see that Conversational holes only had M5 instead of M5 $0. I'm not sure if that could affect it or not? Maybe a place to start.

I have today and tomorrow to myself, I can toss the $0 in the same code and see if it goes away for some reason...

I had that same thought myself. I can't see how it would make any difference, but you never know...
It's worth trying though.

I'll give it a go.