On Aug 16 2013 6:20 AM, andy pugh wrote: > On 16 August 2013 12:50, EBo <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why not just have jog respect each axis limit in tern, and not group >> them by linear and rotational? > > Because it is complicated with a non-trivial machine. > > I think that there are controllers that don't even try, and simply > require all jogs to be joint-mode. > > The specific case I am talking about is where a jog is altering the > approach angle of the tool to the work (A and B axes) while not > altering the tool-tip position in XYZ space. To do this requires > movement of the X, Y and Z Joints, but there is no change in the XYZ > coordinates. > > I have a feeling that I have looked at this before and that it all > works fine for incremental and jogwheel jogs. I will check that point > tonight.
Fair enough, but is it possible to model jogs after simplified G1 commands? That way you are using the same kenimatics as defined in the machine. I must admit that I had not considered the leadin without changing the X/Y/Z. I'll think on this and see if I can come up with a cleaner abstraction. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
