I seem to be having some success with this. I have a simulation config set up with max velocities set to 100x, and max accelerations set to 10000x, feed-overide set to 100x. Using my scaled timer set to 100x the estimated run time seems to be pretty consistently about 25% too long for a 20 minute engraving file, but a slow 1 hour long single move tests just right.
So I increased the acceleration still further, until I started to get runtimes approximately the same as an unscaled simulation. I ended up with the acclerations set to 20000x the original configuration that I am trying to simulate. It doesn't hardly seem right but is what seems to be working. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zuercher" <zuerc...@embarqmail.com> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" <emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 9:52:18 AM Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Hacking a sim runtime mode A quick stupid question, if i'm scaling time 100x, velocities should increase 100x, but what about acceleration, should that be increased 10000x or 100x? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zuercher" <zuerc...@embarqmail.com> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" <emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:30:34 PM Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Hacking a sim runtime mode I think you are probably right. Running the simulation at 100x was much more accurate than 1000x. Tomorrow I'll have to play with the servo thread speed some and see if and how much improvement I can find. But not sure how much improvement will be possible in a sim config on a VM. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Dubovsky" <smdubov...@gmail.com> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" <emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:52:42 PM Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Hacking a sim runtime mode I think the error of this approach (using N times higher accel/vel) is coming from the piecewise linear approximations of the curves going bad. If you try to follow a curve N times faster, then there are N times fewer samples along that curve for a fixed time sampling period. That introduces errors. There may be others but thats at least part of it. Its the same problem w/ discrete time vs continuous time systems. There is divergence between the solutions as the sampling rate goes down. On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Todd Zuercher <zuerc...@embarqmail.com> wrote: > I was just working at this a little bit. The first thing I did was to > modify time.comp, to make a new sim_time.comp. The sim_time.comp is > basically just the same as the regular timer component with an input pin > added to scale the time to what ever factor you speed up the simulation > run. Then I made a dummy config of one of our machines with all the > velocities and accelerations increased by 1000x, and test ran a few things, > the results were not quite as good as I had hoped, but were way better than > the old estimations. Is it possible that some of the inaccuracy came from > the fact I was running it in a VM? > > The timer scaling pin was a really simple mod, would there be any interest > in adding that to the regular release? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: dan...@austin.rr.com > To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)" <emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:24:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Hacking a sim runtime mode > > > ---- Chris Albertson <albertson.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Peter C. Wallace <p...@mesanet.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, dan...@austin.rr.com wrote: > > > > > > > > I just tried a real time Mesa Ethernet config with maxvel = 120000 IPM > (2000 > > > IPS = 20 MHz step rate at present 10000 steps/In scaling) and maxaccel > 20000 > > > IPS/S (52 Gs) with a 1 KHz servo thread, and it works fine (Peak > following > > > errors in the 1-2 mill region) > > > > The problem to be solved is getting an estimate of the time required > > to complete a job. Does the above do this accurately? > > Yeah I want to know this. I can run a job for real vs "fast sim" and > compare. One prob is the cycle time only goes down to seconds AFAIK. If > it's 100x then that's over a minute and a half it could be wrong, but > that's still good enough as long as it's not estimating a very short job. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
