Hi Mark, thanks — that’s an interesting idea.
Technically, running two separate LinuxCNC instances on two physical PCs (one dedicated to motion control, the other acting as PLC/HMI) could meet the functional requirements.
However, for our target environment — multiple non-G-code operators, industrial maintenance, and potential future machine sales — we prefer a clearer separation of roles:
LinuxCNC dedicated strictly to deterministic motion control, and a real industrial PLC + HMI handling sequencing, recipes, interlocks, and operator interface.
On the motion side, we are currently planning to use Mesa Electronics hardware (for example 7i96S with 7i84U remote I/O and THCAD-2), but the exact hardware is not finalized yet. LinuxCNC would remain focused purely on motion and kinematics.
Using two PCs increases overall system complexity (two OS installs, updates, storage, diagnostics, etc.), and it still doesn’t fully meet the typical industrial expectation of having a dedicated PLC for troubleshooting, maintenance, and customer acceptance — compared to using a conventional PLC platform (e.g. Mitsubishi, Omron, Beckhoff, etc.).
Safety will be handled by dedicated safety hardware (E-stop, STO, safety relays or a safety PLC), independent of whether LinuxCNC or PLC is used for logic.
So at the moment we are leaning toward a PLC + HMI + LinuxCNC motion architecture rather than using a second LinuxCNC instance as a PLC replacement.
Cheers!