Clearly, I've not been reading in the right place. That 7% is new info
for me. I assume that the 7% is a worst case but I have no idea how
someone came up with that figure. I that magnitude of error is common it
is a serious fault but I don't think I've ever seen real errors but
then how many of us have good enough instrumentation to check that. So
much of what I do are perimeters of features that don't have to exactly
match anything else so obviously we get away with it. In reality I
suppose that if you need it nice and round you interp to close and then
use a boring head but that does not solve some conditions. Can't win
them all.
Dave
On 2/9/22 4:17 PM, andy pugh wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 19:30, dave engvall <dengv...@charter.net> wrote:
Hi,
It would appear that the 'easy' way to compare the two methods would be
to use sim or usrspace. That would get it plotted but I doubt the
differences, unless gross, would be easily detectable on a plot.
Thde docs state that a 7% difference was seen, but with some brief
experimentation I can't see it:
F1000
G0 X0 Y0
G2 X10 Y0.1 R5.00025
G0 X0 Y0
G2 X10 Y0.1 I5.0 J0.05
M2
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
