On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:17:48 -0500, Jon Elson wrote: > Andy Pugh wrote: >> On 9 Aug 2012, at 17:36, Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote: >> >> >>> We would >>> not want to >>> make any changes that significantly slow the block execution rate. >>> >> >> I think that in general the physical layer is orders of magnitude >> slower than the software. >> > You mean the physical axes? Yes, certainly, but for contouring > programs, there > are typically thousands of very short vectors, and getting through > them > in a reasonable > time is useful on routers and such machines. it may well be the > 1-block > lookahead is > the real bottleneck, I don't know.
I imagine that it is a big bottleneck, and look to see if there is/not any blending of the short segments (ie if the lines are very close to being collinear then you do not need to come to a full stop before starting the next). You might also check into using something like NURBS (assuming that it is in working condition). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
