Hallo,
we do introduce with 2.7 the new tool path and a lot of good stuff, but
IMHO we do forget one real important fix!
LinuxCNC do limit the amount of tools to 56 tools, correct??
This is stupid!
I have a Heckler & Koch machine with 24 places, but as I do own about
500 tool fixtures with SK
On 22 February 2015 at 16:12, andy pugh wrote:
>
> On 22 February 2015 at 16:03, Niemand Sonst wrote:
>
>> Who knows:
>> - Why do we have that limit, the tool.tbl does accept more tools!
>> - How to fix that!
>>
>
> I fixed it, nobody cared. I gave up.
>
http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl
On 22 February 2015 at 16:03, Niemand Sonst wrote:
> Who knows:
> - Why do we have that limit, the tool.tbl does accept more tools!
> - How to fix that!
>
I fixed it, nobody cared. I gave up.
--
atp
If you can't fix it, you don't own it.
http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
---
I think the limit is derived from the message size (send all tools in
one message) it should just send tools used/changed and an index
number so the tool table can be sent over a number of massages as
needed
Dave
On 22/02/2015, Niemand Sonst wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> we do introduce with 2.7 the new t
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:17:53 AM Dave Caroline wrote:
> I think the limit is derived from the message size (send all tools in
> one message) it should just send tools used/changed and an index
> number so the tool table can be sent over a number of massages as
> needed
>
> Dave
>
That wou
On 22 February 2015 at 16:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
> instructs the operator to put that tool in
> pocket # such and such in the ATC, (replacing the least used tool if its
> full) but an unlimited (by disk space only) table on the disk.
>
The whole thing is rather complicated by the fact that tool
On 02/22/2015 09:14 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 22 February 2015 at 16:12, andy pugh wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 February 2015 at 16:03, Niemand Sonst wrote:
>>
>>> Who knows:
>>> - Why do we have that limit, the tool.tbl does accept more tools!
>>> - How to fix that!
>>>
>>
>> I fixed it, nobody cared.
i need this to , it's quite restricting for a few of my machines
On 22 February 2015 at 17:12, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> On 02/22/2015 09:14 AM, andy pugh wrote:
> > On 22 February 2015 at 16:12, andy pugh wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 22 February 2015 at 16:03, Niemand Sonst wrote:
> >>
> >>> W
@Andy,
please post your branch, I will review it as much as it is in my
possibilities.
I can not understand, why it is not fixed, your suggestion is from 2013.
Seb, what happened?
One more question, related to:
--
he whole thing is rather complicated by the fa
Jeff Johnson
- Reply message -
From: "Niemand Sonst"
To:
Subject: [Emc-developers] Tool Number limit
Date: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 2:16 PM
@Andy,
please post your branch, I will review it as much as it is in my
possibilities.
I can not understand, why it is not fixed, your suggestion is fr
Calling things stupid and trying to intimidate the developers with
kindergarten insults usually is not very productive in an open source
project... I know I should do as others and just ignore stupid comments
but every now and then I can't.
JT
On 2/22/2015 1:16 PM, Niemand Sonst wrote:
> @Andy
On 02/22/2015 12:16 PM, Niemand Sonst wrote:
> please post your branch, I will review it as much as it is in my
> possibilities.
> I can not understand, why it is not fixed, your suggestion is from 2013.
> Seb, what happened?
Because nobody made time to review it.
> One more question, related t
On 22 February 2015 at 17:12, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> Can you post your branch again?
>
> Maybe Norbert will review it and see if it satisfies his need?
>
OK, I have pushed it to a new branch. I have to admit that it has been a
long time since I looked at it.
And I seem to have broken the
>
>
> Jeff Johnson
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Niemand Sonst"
> To:
> Subject: [Emc-developers] Tool Number limit
> Date: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 2:16 PM
> @Andy,
>
> please post your branch, I will review it as much as it is in my
> possibilities.
> I can not understand, why it is not fixed
On 02/22/2015 01:11 PM, andy pugh wrote:
... snip
I abandoned it to a large extent because it was only half of what I wanted
to do. For instance it has none of the extra capability that the proposed
database layout in the wiki page has.
(Possibly worth mentioning that that database layout was lar
On 02/22/2015 02:25 PM, Kirk Wallace wrote:
> On 02/22/2015 01:11 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> ... snip
>> I abandoned it to a large extent because it was only half of what I
>> wanted
>> to do. For instance it has none of the extra capability that the proposed
>> database layout in the wiki page has.
>>
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Kirk Wallace
wrote:
> On 02/22/2015 01:11 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> ... snip
>
>> I abandoned it to a large extent because it was only half of what I wanted
>> to do. For instance it has none of the extra capability that the proposed
>> database layout in the wiki pa
17 matches
Mail list logo
