John,
Don't get hung up on text config files. There is not that many. Most
things are done in two files (2).
You just admitted that you have done some programming..I knew that
before.. so you have no excuse.
If you can program Delphi, you can do the config for a LinuxCNC setup.
There are also wizards for setting up a stepper system and a servo system.
There are also sample configs to get you up and running fast.
Its really not hard.. I would be shocked if you thought it was
difficult. (SHOCKED!)
Now it is not Mach3 (which I have used) so you need to get past the fact
that the config is not point and click, but you can do so many things
with LinuxCNC that are impossible with Mach3... I'm not going there...
but its true. Comparing LinuxCNC to Mach3 is really not a
comparison. They are totally different animals.
You can say that LinuxCNC should be more user friendly ..for the
masses.. so everyone can have a LinuxCNC mill in their basement .. and a
CNC lathe in their garage ... etc... but you... you have no excuse..
I know you are searching for a small solution.
A BBB might be worthwhile for an OEM solution who does it once and
replicates it 150 times, but for a one-off...
Why not use an Intel NUC with a Mesa Ethernet connected board?
Velcro the NUC PC to the back of your monitor.
Apparently it does work.
https://forum.linuxcnc.org/18-computer/32275-anyone-tried-the-intel-n3150-cpu-atom-4-core
Dave
On 10/11/2017 1:56 PM, John Dammeyer wrote:
If you can
think it, you can pretty much do it with LinuxCNC.
Jon
Hi Jon,
I don't disagree. The same can be said of Linux (and is by Linux
proponents).
Here's the thing though. To set up my motors I had to edit a text file. Oh
wait, that's standard Linux practice for everything. Edit command lines.
Edit text files. All sorts of text files in all sorts of locations. Often
the sample distribution text files have comments that have no relationship
to the information in the text files.
Now flip to the Windows/MAC world and you get dialogs with all the fields
where you can hover and get hints or click and get help files.
True, for LinuxCNC (MachineKit) you can search the web for information on
what to enter into those Linux text files but as you pointed out, that
comparison on Beagle Speed was maybe 2 years old. One never knows what's
really up to date. And since LinuxCNC is all powerful the claim can be
made that putting all that stuff into windows and dialogs couldn't possible
handle all the permutations. I agree there too. But then for the 'experts'
they'd roll their own anyway.
Do I want to spend hours and hours researching which parameters to change
not knowing for sure if the document found on the web is up to date? The
Beagle seemed like such a nice idea. But clearly from the 'older' document
the AXIS uses up a lot of CPU time. That's shown in my CPU indictor that
goes solid green as soon as motion starts with the tool path shown but only
about 50% green with only the DROs.
Click the Tab button on MACH3 and a Pendant model slides out from the right
of the screen. All jog buttons etc are there for the mouse. The Axis
interface has radio buttons and one jog button for all. Probably possible
to make something like that for AXIS or LinuxCNC and then there's the
latency from screen button to motor movement that isn't on my PC. But I
agree that's apples and oranges comparison.
I want to keep the discussion on whether a Beagle can run LinuxCNC past the
demo point of "Look! We got the motors turning!" So far testing with the
MDI shows nice repeatability and motion with the Y position commands. Both
with G00 and G01. So yet I have motors turning.
Since MACH3 was available 10 years ago I'm still amazed that someone hasn't
cloned the user screens and basic functionality of MACH3 with LinuxCNC (or
even BBB MachineKit). Either it's an attitude in the form of why would we
want to? Or maybe it's so difficult or not even possible and it's easier to
slam windows and MACH3.
Every single MACH3 user out there who has all their fancy screens and custom
user interfaces might switch over to LinuxCNC on a PC in a heartbeat if the
initial look and feel was the same. Especially if they could use a newer 64
bit machine with Ethernet or USB3 to Parallel Port adaptors.
The Beagle appears to have potential still. But the current AXIS system
definitely cripples it if you run the graphical path screen. Maybe when I'm
retired I'll have time to do something.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
