[Emc-developers] Ethercat-Driver for LinuxCNC
The last two years I've developed and tested a flexible ethercat driver for LinuxCNC. In the meantime it is used in several productive machines without problems and supports a couple of dedicated devices plus a generic driver, so I like to integrate it into the official distribution if there is any interest for that. I have no ideas yet what steps will be required. One of the most problematic part could be the integration of the ethercat master. I have build a debian setup for this, but it's based on rtai only at the moment. The master itself seems to support Xenomai also. Some information about EtherCAT: http://www.ethercat.org/en/technology.html Some (not really maintained) docs about my driver: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?EtherCatDriver Some discussion: www.linuxcnc.org/index.php/german/forum/24-hal-components/22346-ethercat-hal-driver Please find the source here: https://github.com/sittner/linuxcnc/tree/add-hal-ethercat The project home of the used EtherCAT master: http://www.etherlab.org/de/ethercat/index.php Information about the currently supported devices (by the dedicated drivers) could be found here: http://www.beckhoff.com/english.asp?ethercat/ethercat_terminals.htm http://www.stoeber.de (and no, I do not have any commercial driven relationship to these companies :-) ) regards Sascha -- Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
Sergey's email is k...@ksilabs.com if you want to contact him, etc. I'm not sure he is going to be spending much time on the Mach3 email list from now on so I might miss his whitepaper's release.. Dave On 8/7/2013 3:34 AM, EBo wrote: > If anyone is communicating with Sergey, please forward his white paper > when it is done. > > EBo -- > > On Aug 6 2013 2:33 PM, Dave wrote: > >> There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email >> list that some of you might be interested in.. >> >> The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - >> Time >> data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an >> external motion controller. >> Basically the new Mach4 uses the same data interface and Sergey is >> not >> happy about that..as you can read below. It appears that Sergey >> asked >> Brian to supply a new, improved interface and >> Brian is not doing that.. >> >> Brian Barker owns Artsoft - the supplier of Mach3. >> >> A new version of Mach3, called Mach4 has been in development for >> years. >> >> Sergey, I believe, is the owner of KSI Labs and has a loyal >> following. >> >> Sergey mentioned EMC2/LinuxCNC several times in the reply below. >> This >> is his second or third in the exchange with Brian. Brian replied to >> this message also, but not in any substantial way.. >> >> Dave >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Brian Barker wrote: >> >> I'm reiterating -- there is _ABSOLUTELY NO NEED_ to remove the old >> functionality. I've been talking about _ADDING_ the proper trajectory >> data, >> _NOT REPLACING_ the old stuff. >> >> Sergey's reply >> >> >> >> Then, the time is now or never. Nobody makes major changes to a >> software in >> minor versions. Such a change is MAJOR and usually comes in a new >> version. >> E.g. Mach4 vs Mach3. You reworked the code, made major changes so no >> older >> plugins would work any more without complete rewriting but you did >> not put >> proper functionality in it. The earliest such a functionality could >> be added >> is Mach5 -- you don't expect everybody will rewrite their plugins for >> ANY >> minor Mach4 version change, do you? -- but I'll probably be well into >> my >> retirement by then if I live THAT long. >> >> Then, trying to avoid manufacturers rewriting their plugins does not >> stand >> even a laugh test. It could've made sense had their old plugins still >> had >> been working but they have to rewrite them anyways. Rewriting 85% of >> their >> code does not make it any easier than rewriting 85.1%. >> >> So there is no hope, you don't want to make your Mach software any >> closer to >> professional grade keeping it in "for hobby use only" category. No >> problems, >> it is your choice. You had a chance but you wasted it so you're stuck >> in >> that hobby segment. >> >> With such an "upgrade" there is absolutely no REAL need for anybody >> to >> switch to the shiny new version -- it won't let them do better >> MACHINING >> job, it's the same old candy in a new package. >> >> There is also no reason for anybody to use any intelligent >> controllers with >> your software because it is pure waste on features that are never >> used. Your >> software is not just made to allow using cheapest dumb "BBs" >> available, it >> is made to support _ONLY_ such hardware so anything more complex and >> intelligent simply _MUST_ be dumbed down to that level. That means >> _ALL_ >> advanced features should be turned off ergo there is _ABSOLUTELY_ no >> reason >> to pay for any such features. >> >> That also means that no matter how good a motion controller is and >> what its >> capabilities are there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to do actual MACHINING >> any >> better than using a cheapest chinese dumb BB available. >> >> Again, this is your choice and I can not tell you what to do. Neither >> can I >> push you to do something -- it is all up to you. >> >> The thing is I simply can not see where I fit in your world. Neither >> I'm >> going to waste my time on making dumb BBs nor there is a need for >> just a new >> one -- chinese stuff is abundant and dirt cheap and there is no >> shortage of >> that crap, you just whistle... Even if someone WAS going to make >> something >> new it is futile because you simply can NOT compete with chinese >> crap. >> >> Sure, there is one other way -- one can deliberately deceive those >> who don't >> have any knowledge on the subject by telling them his controller is >> very >> advanced and can dance polka, anticipate Mach output, interpolate on >> a >> single point etc so illeterate people would buy his stuff. >> Unfortunately I'm >> not of the used cars salesman type so I simply can not do that. >> >> I'm an engineer by trade and by calling -- I get my endorphins from >> designing and making things and I'm addicted to it. There is simply
Re: [Emc-developers] Trouble in Mach3 / Mach4 land..
If anyone is communicating with Sergey, please forward his white paper when it is done. EBo -- On Aug 6 2013 2:33 PM, Dave wrote: > There has been a heated exchange the last two days on the Mach3 email > list that some of you might be interested in.. > > The discussion centers around the Mach3 planner and the Position - > Time > data that is passed to a 3rd party plug in when Mach3 is used with an > external motion controller. > Basically the new Mach4 uses the same data interface and Sergey is > not > happy about that..as you can read below. It appears that Sergey > asked > Brian to supply a new, improved interface and > Brian is not doing that.. > > Brian Barker owns Artsoft - the supplier of Mach3. > > A new version of Mach3, called Mach4 has been in development for > years. > > Sergey, I believe, is the owner of KSI Labs and has a loyal > following. > > Sergey mentioned EMC2/LinuxCNC several times in the reply below. > This > is his second or third in the exchange with Brian. Brian replied to > this message also, but not in any substantial way.. > > Dave > > > > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Brian Barker wrote: > > I'm reiterating -- there is _ABSOLUTELY NO NEED_ to remove the old > functionality. I've been talking about _ADDING_ the proper trajectory > data, > _NOT REPLACING_ the old stuff. > > Sergey's reply > > > > Then, the time is now or never. Nobody makes major changes to a > software in > minor versions. Such a change is MAJOR and usually comes in a new > version. > E.g. Mach4 vs Mach3. You reworked the code, made major changes so no > older > plugins would work any more without complete rewriting but you did > not put > proper functionality in it. The earliest such a functionality could > be added > is Mach5 -- you don't expect everybody will rewrite their plugins for > ANY > minor Mach4 version change, do you? -- but I'll probably be well into > my > retirement by then if I live THAT long. > > Then, trying to avoid manufacturers rewriting their plugins does not > stand > even a laugh test. It could've made sense had their old plugins still > had > been working but they have to rewrite them anyways. Rewriting 85% of > their > code does not make it any easier than rewriting 85.1%. > > So there is no hope, you don't want to make your Mach software any > closer to > professional grade keeping it in "for hobby use only" category. No > problems, > it is your choice. You had a chance but you wasted it so you're stuck > in > that hobby segment. > > With such an "upgrade" there is absolutely no REAL need for anybody > to > switch to the shiny new version -- it won't let them do better > MACHINING > job, it's the same old candy in a new package. > > There is also no reason for anybody to use any intelligent > controllers with > your software because it is pure waste on features that are never > used. Your > software is not just made to allow using cheapest dumb "BBs" > available, it > is made to support _ONLY_ such hardware so anything more complex and > intelligent simply _MUST_ be dumbed down to that level. That means > _ALL_ > advanced features should be turned off ergo there is _ABSOLUTELY_ no > reason > to pay for any such features. > > That also means that no matter how good a motion controller is and > what its > capabilities are there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to do actual MACHINING > any > better than using a cheapest chinese dumb BB available. > > Again, this is your choice and I can not tell you what to do. Neither > can I > push you to do something -- it is all up to you. > > The thing is I simply can not see where I fit in your world. Neither > I'm > going to waste my time on making dumb BBs nor there is a need for > just a new > one -- chinese stuff is abundant and dirt cheap and there is no > shortage of > that crap, you just whistle... Even if someone WAS going to make > something > new it is futile because you simply can NOT compete with chinese > crap. > > Sure, there is one other way -- one can deliberately deceive those > who don't > have any knowledge on the subject by telling them his controller is > very > advanced and can dance polka, anticipate Mach output, interpolate on > a > single point etc so illeterate people would buy his stuff. > Unfortunately I'm > not of the used cars salesman type so I simply can not do that. > > I'm an engineer by trade and by calling -- I get my endorphins from > designing and making things and I'm addicted to it. There is simply > no place > in your Mach world where I can satisfy that urge to make new things > to feed > my addiction. I'm getting off your ship not because I'm angry but > because > I'm bored and there is nothing for me to do here. > > There is no shame in staying in hobbyist market. There are plenty of > people > who are hobbyists and they are
