Agreed that sounds like the right approach to me. Does it reference the step settings we have in hal or does it override them for those that you spec'd in that posting? I have only .01, .001, and .0001 right now and honestly I like that simply because of the speed in transitioning thru the settings. What other features are integrated in the patch? Does cycle start and pause as well as Estop work? I am not able to get one of these right now but it is HIGH on the priority list of options to add to my CNC setup here. The videos I have watched online about them seem quite promising. Does the step rate show on the LCD display when you switch between them? Thanks for clarifying this for us. Peace
Pete On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Dewey Garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > XHC HB04 pendant has hal pin step-up, while it is more convienient way > > to approach some position by stepping increment down. > > The hal component (src/hal/components/xhc-hb04.cc) provides > hal pins for button-step (output) and stepsize-up (input) that > are conventionally connected with the signal named pendant:step: > > $ halcmd show signal pendant:step > Signals: > Type Value Name (linked to) > bit FALSE pendant:step > <== xhc-hb04.button-step > ==> xhc-hb04.stepsize-up > > With this connection, repeated presses of the step button will > increment the stepsize through one of the supported sequences: > (0.001,0.010,0.100,1.000) typ for mm-base machine > or > (0.001,0.005,0.010,0.020) typ for inch-base machine > > After the largest increment, the sequence rolls over and restarts > at the smallest increment. > > We could implement an additional stepsize-down input for use > instead of stepsize-up but I am not sure it is a good idea. If > the user does not carefully note the displayed increment value > and pushes the step button to do stepsize-down, a rollover to > the largest increment may be a big surprise when the user next > clicks the MPG. > > When using the current implementation with stepsize-up, an > inadvertent rollover to the smallest increment may be a surprise > but is less likely to crash a machine. > > The existing implementation aligns with the button names on the > pendant and is simple. Cycling throught four stepsize increments > is fairly quick and encourages the user to look at the displayed > increment value when choosing a smaller increment. It seems to me > that adding provisions for stepsize-down would add complexity and > increase chances for operator error. > -- > Dewey Garrett > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
