Ok - I finally got a chance to test some more real hardware. This is a bastard router that has 3 different steppers/drive (it was a converted step/repeat machine.) I built robs latest (RC3) from the linuxcnc git and ran some of the test programs. some good news one bad.
Good news. The motion is very smooth. The program I was testing was the LHchips4.ngc. It sounds very nice. http://electronicsam.com/images/KandT/testing/LHchips4.ngc I found one issue. A cutting profile containing more than 1 axis will only go as fast as the slowest axis. This machine has 3 different axis velocities X 150ipm Y 78IPM Z 50IPM On the 'belly' of chips - there are long x-z profiles (mostly X moves). The profiles would peak at 50ipm. (they should peak at something between X and Z. The current TP actually runs that profile faster (closer to 100ipm) There are long XY profiles also - they peak at 78ipm but should peak pretty close to 150ipm in some areas.. I talked to Rob about this - he said I should post here in case others have seen this issue and didn't know what was happening. He has some Ideas on solutions and will keep us posted. sam On 03/03/2014 05:12 PM, Robert Ellenberg wrote: > Hi All, > > I just created a "release candidate" branch for circular arc blending: > > http://git.linuxcnc.org/gitweb?p=linuxcnc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/circular-blend-arc-rc1 > > It's identical to my github branch that Sam and others have been testing. > There was one small hiccup in pushing the new branch: > > remote: fatal: bad object 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > > However, it looks like the build failed here: > > http://buildbot.linuxcnc.org/buildbot/builders/1400.rip-wheezy-rtpreempt-amd64/builds/193 > > I'm not sure how to interpret this error, but I suspect that since I forked > from master back in October, there have been fixes that my branch is > missing. > > As a possible solution, I've been able to rebase the RC branch onto the > lastest master with minimal changes. If there is a recent build that we > know is solid, I can rebase my branch onto that and push it. If I go down > this route, should I increment the branch's name, or just overwrite the > "bad" branch? > > -Rob > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. > With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. > Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the > freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
