Re: [Emc-developers] What to do about the docs?
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 21:59, Rod Webster wrote: > >> It is possible to generate translations on the fly on a web site using >> Google Translate. > > There is an interesting problem with computer translation, which needs > to be kept in mind and that is character encoding. > There is some risk of scrambling everything and not knowing if you > don't speak the language. > (This would be equivalent of taking a text in plain ascii and > displaying it in rot13 encoding. Unless you can read the language, it > would look just fine to you if you can not read latin script). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake > FWIW, I would worry you would end up with some documentation like the Chinese to English translations you get when you buy stuff from China. Just a thought. Joe > > -- > atp > "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is > designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and > lunatics." > — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912 > > > ___ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] Slightly wacky docs proposal
John, While on the topic of documentation, did you resolve the issue of building the docs when compiling not being merged into a single document like the online docs? I think we discussed it on the IRC channel while I was doing test compiles under Lubuntu 18.04. Joe - On Jun 11, 2019, at 8:10 AM, John Thornton bjt...@gmail.com wrote: > Dang it I pressed the wrong reply button... > > Will the docs still build after changing the extension? Or does the doc > building need changes as well? > > JT > > On 6/11/2019 7:20 AM, andy pugh wrote: >> If we were to rename all the .txt asciidoc files to .adoc then they would >> be automatically rendered in Github in pretty form. >> This would make it far easier for contributors to make simple edits and see >> the results. >> >> Is this worth doing? ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] Stepconf questionure or bug?
Hi Folks, I am sorry, I was incorrect in my statement that you cannot enter an address for the port. The entry field is there to do it, it just does not have a label indicating that is what the input field is for. I am sorry for any confusion I may have created. Joe - On Feb 1, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Joe Hildreth j...@threerivershospital.com wrote: > Hello all, > > I have been doing a series of tutorials for newbies to LinuxCNC. The current > one > I am working on is using stepconf. While using this software, you can select > if > you have one or two parallel ports installed in the machine. I have selected > two. > > The first parallel port dialog allows you to enter either an enumerated port > or > the address of the port in the field. All work as expected. > > The second parallel port dialog, allows you to select if the port will be used > as either input or output, but you cannot enter the hardware address of the > port. When the hal file is written, it assumes the next enumerated port in the > list for this second port. > > I am not a programmer, but it seems to me that I should have the ability to > add > the address of the port. > > The documentation for the second port reads, "You may specify the address as a > hexadecimal (often 0x378) or as Linux’s default port number (probably 1)." So > this looks like an oversight? > > I am putting the video tutorial on hold for now. Can this be fixed, or should > I > explain these details to the novice user. > > Any input would be appreciated. > > Regards, > > Joe Hildreth > > ___ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
[Emc-developers] Stepconf questionure or bug?
Hello all, I have been doing a series of tutorials for newbies to LinuxCNC. The current one I am working on is using stepconf. While using this software, you can select if you have one or two parallel ports installed in the machine. I have selected two. The first parallel port dialog allows you to enter either an enumerated port or the address of the port in the field. All work as expected. The second parallel port dialog, allows you to select if the port will be used as either input or output, but you cannot enter the hardware address of the port. When the hal file is written, it assumes the next enumerated port in the list for this second port. I am not a programmer, but it seems to me that I should have the ability to add the address of the port. The documentation for the second port reads, "You may specify the address as a hexadecimal (often 0x378) or as Linux’s default port number (probably 1)." So this looks like an oversight? I am putting the video tutorial on hold for now. Can this be fixed, or should I explain these details to the novice user. Any input would be appreciated. Regards, Joe Hildreth ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
Re: [Emc-developers] Cutter Compensation
Andy, > I intended to test this, but haven't found the time. > It seems extremely likely that the tool table units will be assumed to > match the machine units. There is no field in the data to indicate the > units. > > Any manual editing of the tool table would have to be in base machine units. > I spent some time on the IRC and cradek told me that the tool file offsets are interpreted in the same units the machine has been configured in. So it sounds like there is some consensus here. > The more interesting question is what happens if using the various > versions of G10. I would actually expect that to do the conversions > based on the current G-code units. > Is that not what was observed? Unfortunately, I cannot confirm this. This issue was relayed to me as a result of the last video I completed on the CNC for the Hobbyist from a subscriber. This arose because I suggested that configuring the machine unit based on the leadscrew or pinion travel of a rack and pinion would be the simplest thing to do. I agree that I would expect the controller to convert to the appropriate unit based on which G-Code was used, G20, G21 Personally, I have never had the need to use cutter compensation because the CAM software I use for my router bases it path on the selected too geometry rather than the programmed vector points. I suppose in reality, leaving the tool table set to the machine units is fine as I guess most people have either imperial tooling or metric. But playing the devils advocate, I can see where some people, perhaps in the UK and Australia may have both. This means they are forced to convert some of their tools to metric or imperial. In a perfect world perhaps the tool file would reflect the units of the tool and make conversions as needed. I am not a programmer and I am sure there are reasons this does not work that way. My main goal was to wrap my brain around how it works so when I get to the part of the series where a machine is configured that it is clear to the end user 1) Configure the machine unit to the bulk of your tooling. 2) When creating tool table entries and associated offsets, the values have to be the same as the machine unit. My hope with the series is that I can cover enough material over time to get more people into the hobby. I am not the best teacher in the world, but I am starting to see traffic and comments surrounding the series. Thank you Andy for answering this question and the many questions you have answered for me in the past. Regards, Joe ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
[Emc-developers] Cutter Compensation
Hello all, Not sure if this is where I should ask this question, but thought I would give it a try. I have been slowly doing a video series on CNC for the home hobbyist. I been trying to cover stuff in small digestible chunks so that newbies who are wanting to get into CNC from a home shop or hobbyist point of view would have some resources available. The last video I made talked about linear motion, and I suggested that when configuring that the system would be easiest to configure in whatever units the linear motion is in. Inch or metric. After releasing this video I received an email stating the following. Another friend of mine got a Cincinnatti machine and converted it to linuxcnc control. As it has metric ballscrews, he configured it that way in the config file. Everything worked great UNTIL... he tried to use cutter comp. It seems that cutter comp has to be used in the configured units and won't work properly in imperial even though all the rest of the gcode etc is in imperial! In order to use cutter comp, he had to convert the inch offset to metric and input that! To alleviate the problem, he had to go back and convert the metric setting to imperial and start over as he predominantly works in inches! The control doesn't care really as the input is just a number. For example instead of inputting a pitch for a 5mm screw, of 5; input 0.196850393700787 which is the inch equivalent! What I take from this is that the machine was initially configure in metric because of the leadscrews, and his g-code was written in imperial units. The problem appearing to be that when the tool file is read, the offsets are interpreted as metric. Is this the case? Is this a bug? I don't have a timeline of the events or version of LCNC being talked about. Is this something that has been corrected, if the problem existed? If the problem exists, does the reverse hold true? For example, if I configure a machine to use imperial units initially and I use g-code written for metric, will the controller read the tool file offsets as imperial? Sorry for the blather on, I just want to try and give the most accurate information I can. I am not a machinist, engineer or a teacher but am doing my best. If your interested, the playlist for the videos I have created so far can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaamliiI72ntlrHKIFjh2VjmehRGgZpjm Thanks folks for all the work you do. You make LCNC a better product day by day! Regards, Joe Joe Hildreth IT Manager Three Rivers Hospital 451 Hwy 13 South Waverly, TN 37185 (931) 296-0217 (office) (931) 622-3130 (cell) ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
[Emc-developers] Parallel Port Docs revisited - Cross Post
Hello all, I posted this earlier to the emc users list so this is technically a cross post. Hopefully this is not a problem. If there is an issue, please let me know and I will refrain from cross posting in the future. My earlier posts were about the parallel port docs located at http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.7/html/hal/parallel-port.html, in which there is a table describing the parallel port pins for a given mode, "IN", "Out" or "x". I believe that pin 14 on the "IN" column is incorrect and should read out rather than in. If I am correct, can the documentation be edited. The message below is what I posted to the users group, and the video link below is what I created to show why I think I am correct. Now having said that, if I am incorrect would someone try to explain to me why I am wrong? = I think I done a poor job of explaining my question, although I believe Andy Pugh got it. I created a video demonstrating what I mean, although not the best presentation. Was wondering if someone would correct my mis-information or confirm what I think to be true. If I am correct, can we get it changed in the documentation. Here is the video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE6tW6W_5Po | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE6tW6W_5Po ] I am sorry if I am being a pain in the a$$ Regards, Joe -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
