[Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[Todd Zuercher]

Envisioning a Cartesian machine with parallel axis with overlapping work areas. 
 Is there a way to prevent/predict crashes between these overlapping axis with 
some sort of dynamic soft limit system?
For example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can be 
located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than X, and X 
can only go to a position less than U. 
Now for a further twist, what if it were two separate Linuxcnc controls with 
overlapping areas. With X on machine 1 (X1) and X on machine 2 (X2).  Running 
separate G-code simultaneously but still needing to predict or at least prevent 
interference.  (Not sure this will be possible) 
-- 


Todd Zuercher
mailto:zuerc...@embarqmail.com


--
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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 02 February 2018 09:49:33 Todd Zuercher wrote:

> Envisioning a Cartesian machine with parallel axis with overlapping
> work areas.  Is there a way to prevent/predict crashes between these
> overlapping axis with some sort of dynamic soft limit system? For
> example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can
> be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than
> X, and X can only go to a position less than U. Now for a further
> twist, what if it were two separate Linuxcnc controls with overlapping
> areas. With X on machine 1 (X1) and X on machine 2 (X2).  Running
> separate G-code simultaneously but still needing to predict or at
> least prevent interference.  (Not sure this will be possible)

Todd, I just now got rid of a mild headache I woke up with, but now its 
back. :( 

One might add limit switches to stop the crash I suppose, but that would 
be tricky to setup just because the switches are going to be a few 
milliseconds out of time, but each would have to be wired into its own 
instance of LinuxCNC. Resuming cleanly after the crash stop I'll have to 
leave to your ingenuity. I've not mastered that myself.

A single instance running both processes might be doable, but then how 
does one actually make them run asynch?  I assume that IS the target?

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[Sebastian Kuzminsky]

On 02/02/2018 07:49 AM, Todd Zuercher wrote:

Envisioning a Cartesian machine with parallel axis with overlapping
work areas.  Is there a way to prevent/predict crashes between these
overlapping axis with some sort of dynamic soft limit system? For
example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can
be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater
than X, and X can only go to a position less than U. Now for a
further twist, what if it were two separate Linuxcnc controls with
overlapping areas. With X on machine 1 (X1) and X on machine 2 (X2).
Running separate G-code simultaneously but still needing to predict
or at least prevent interference.  (Not sure this will be possible)


I'd try to do the X/U coupling in the kinematics.

I haven't given any thought to coordinating between multiple instances 
of LinuxCNC at that level.



--
Sebastian Kuzminsky

--
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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[Andrew]

2018-02-02 16:49 GMT+02:00 Todd Zuercher:

> For example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can
> be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than X,
> and X can only go to a position less than U.
>

Might be a job for inihal pins ini.N.ini_limit and ini.N.max_limit.
--
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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[BRIAN GLACKIN]

Are you going to have multiple tools working within the same work envelope
on the same piece?


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> 2018-02-02 16:49 GMT+02:00 Todd Zuercher:
>
> > For example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can
> > be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than X,
> > and X can only go to a position less than U.
> >
>
> Might be a job for inihal pins ini.N.ini_limit and ini.N.max_limit.
> 
> --
> 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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[Todd Zuercher]

That was the idea.

- Original Message -
From: BRIAN GLACKIN 
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) 
Sent: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:50:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

Are you going to have multiple tools working within the same work envelope
on the same piece?


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> 2018-02-02 16:49 GMT+02:00 Todd Zuercher:
>
> > For example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U can
> > be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than X,
> > and X can only go to a position less than U.
> >
>
> Might be a job for inihal pins ini.N.ini_limit and ini.N.max_limit.
> 
> --
> 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

-- 


Todd Zuercher
mailto:zuerc...@embarqmail.com



--
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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?

[BRIAN GLACKIN]

I can envision three scenarios that have to be considered from my very
limited experience.

Scenario 1 - Fixed timing - When tools are set up relative timing of the
operations do not vary.  Throughout the run of the program, the operations
will be in a coordinated dance that will be known up front and collisions
are anticipated and handshakes will be instituted for one operation to take
precedence in that collision zone/time.  Lots of setup and upfront analysis
- Once set, no changes can be allowed.  Probably what is done now if at all.

Scenario 2 - Dynamic Timing - This would be where the operation timings are
allowed to vary either by operator choice such as slowing/speeding up one
operation due to wear concerns or interruptions.  In this second scenario,
it seems you would need 3 trajectory planners  - one for each operation and
one to coordinate the "dance" between the two.

Scenario 3 - Priority - In this you would essentially have just two
machines.  When one operation first enters the overlap area, a switch flags
"I own the space".  The operation would then continue until it exits the
space where the switch flips to "space open".  If during this time, the
second machine is approaching the overlap, it would see the flag and either
slow its approach (if there is a timer associated with the flag and
communicated by the trajectory planner of first operation) or stop until it
sees the "space open" flag.   It would then resume into the overlap and
take control of that space until it exits.  Outside of the overlap area,
the operations would not be limited.

Either way, I imagine interruptions to operations/machine movements that
probably should not be interrupted.

Just some thoughts.  Your concept made my mind wander for a bit and I am
most likely all wet.


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Todd Zuercher 
wrote:

> That was the idea.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: BRIAN GLACKIN 
> To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) 
> Sent: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:50:03 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?
>
> Are you going to have multiple tools working within the same work envelope
> on the same piece?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Andrew  wrote:
>
> > 2018-02-02 16:49 GMT+02:00 Todd Zuercher:
> >
> > > For example X can travel from 0-100, and U can travel from 20-120, U
> can
> > > be located in any position in its travel so long as it is greater than
> X,
> > > and X can only go to a position less than U.
> > >
> >
> > Might be a job for inihal pins ini.N.ini_limit and ini.N.max_limit.
> > 
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 
>
> Todd Zuercher
> mailto:zuerc...@embarqmail.com
>
> 
>
> 
> --
> 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

Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits? Re use of existing - non CNC - computer game code

[James Isaac]

> From: BRIAN GLACKIN 
> To: "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?
>
> I can envision three scenarios that have to be considered from my very
> limited experience.
>
> Scenario 1 - Fixed timing – [Text snipped].
> Scenario 2 - Dynamic Timing - [Text snipped].
> Scenario 3 - Priority - [Text snipped].
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Todd Zuercher 
> wrote:
>
> > That was the idea.

>

> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: BRIAN GLACKIN 
> > > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) 
> > > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Dynamic Soft Limits?
> > >
> > > Are you going to have multiple tools working within the same work envelope
> > > on the same piece?


Have you considered scanning computer game code for detecting collisions,

distances that cause a 'unit' to change behaviour,

or aiming points where you want cause a collision?


And then reversing the work of the code?



James Isaac.

--
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