On 31 October 2012 08:05, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> wrote:
> looks like I'm married to the keywords 'tool table', and I'm responsible for > Xmas lighting now, too;) And the music too. > A while ago I suggested a DB approach to the tooltable - which would have > allowed for a tool being retrieved through a view, like including holder and > wear offsets. I thought this was why Redis had been brought in? Or at least part of the reason. I have been expecting a shift to a database tool table to happen in the future, but when (and who) I have no idea. I think we need to allow wear offsets, and for slot numbers and tool numbers to be independent. And once you do that the available number of tools (as I understand it) becomes very limiting. We already have people with more tool slots than LinuxCNC can handle. Once you have the wear offset and geometric offset distinction implicit in the tool-table then the Fanuc-style tool change option become less intrusive, I think. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
