On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Charles Steinkuehler < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/26/2013 10:17 AM, Chris Radek wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 09:17:18AM -0600, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > > > >> simple "move the joint until the switch closes". IMHO there needs to be > >> a way to write programmable homing routines that can perform coordinated > >> motion in joint and/or world space, But one thing at a time... > > > > I don't see how you can possibly move in world space before homing. > > I do see how you could move all joints simultaneously, for instance, > > which might be what you mean? This is a form of "coordinated" > > motion but it is not how we usually use the term "coordinated", > > which means in world mode and in lines and arcs, etc. > > > >> PROPOSAL: > >> It seems to me that the limit check functions should be plug-able, like > >> the kinematics module. The limits could then be as simple or complex as > >> required by any particular machine. > > > Nice idea!!! > > Have you tried just having your inverse kins return a failure in the > > situations you've identified as bad? in JA4 this is dealt with > > nicely I think. Endpoints are checked before a move is started. > > Not sure about how world mode jogs handle it. > > I've had kinematics return invalid results for position, and I suppose > it behaves similar to hitting a limit (the machine shuts off and an > error is presented on-screen). So position might not be too bad as-is > (although it's nice to be told if gcode exceeds the machine limits on > program load instead of 90% of the way through!). > Is this functionality (checking gcode on program load) currently implemented??? --- I like the proposal of having such a plugable limit-check functions or "whaterver you whant check" function. To make it general I think that conceptually this function should give an error condition in any situation that is not considered OK, werther it is related to position velocity acceleration jerk of whatever kinematic abstration you can define (think about avoiding a position dependent resonant frequency, for example). I think user defined variable amount of parameters to characterize the function behavior could be defined at the init level, without even having to match a concise kinematic concept. I wonder if user defined error reporting can be implemented easily, so that the kinematics module programer can decide how to report the error. Defaults can be given for this function, so that it provides the current standard for limit checking. I'm speaking about kinematics, but the same abstraction could equaly rise error conditions on dynamics (or ...) based diagnostic, without changing the abstraction. Javier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
