>I think remap might be a good way to prototype it, and it could be
>distributed (like Sam says) as one of the remap examples. In this
>format it would be useful to anyone who did the work of integrating that
>remap code with their own machine config.
>But i t
On 11/14/2016 08:20 AM, dragon wrote:
> That was exactly my plan as well. Use a sub to make it more in line with
> the way that linuxCNC already does things.
>
> There have been a few attempts at g71 in the past, but they were all
> half-baked from what I could find. None that I found implemented g
My thought would be to add a config to /sim/axis/remap
then people can use it as they please.
sam
On 11/14/2016 9:20 AM, dragon wrote:
> That was exactly my plan as well. Use a sub to make it more in line with
> the way that linuxCNC already does things.
>
> There have been a few attempts at g71
That was exactly my plan as well. Use a sub to make it more in line with
the way that linuxCNC already does things.
There have been a few attempts at g71 in the past, but they were all
half-baked from what I could find. None that I found implemented g70.
They were also very 'hacky' in the way that
On 14 November 2016 at 14:20, dragon wrote:
> I am working towards implementing lathe roughing cycles g71/g72. There
> was some discussion in Wichita as to using remap or integrating this
> into interp. I am trying to get a feel for what the devs would prefer.
Interesting, I was seriously conside
I am working towards implementing lathe roughing cycles g71/g72. There
was some discussion in Wichita as to using remap or integrating this
into interp. I am trying to get a feel for what the devs would prefer.
If a remap implementation is preferred, is there a proposal for shipping
these remaps a
