Back
[00:00:54] <cradek> I could argue with myself over whether tool id should be writable, and if so, what that means -- but in general it either makes sense or doesn't.
[00:19:34] <dgarr> cradek: 15:58:42 not sure i can parse this. it seems to me, that if a parameter is marked _required and is also compile-time readonly and initialized at compile time, then the initialized value is clearly established even if the var file gets modified outside emc.
[00:19:43] <dgarr> as usual, maybe i'm missing your point
[01:14:46] <cradek> sorry for being muddy - I think _required means it is required to be in the var file and it's added if not. I think that these parameters don't belong in the var file because the point of the var file is to preserve them across runs, which is something that makes no sense in this case.
[01:27:53] <dgarr> yes i agree, this just means that #5400 would be omitted from the _required_parameters array. I tested and this is correct. One odd (to me) thing:
[01:28:40] <dgarr> if you have 5400 in the var file, and it is not in the _required, and it is compiletime readonly and set, then a value is maintained in the var file.
[01:29:19] <dgarr> it's all a little confusing if someone looks at the file but i don't think there is a real problem.
[01:30:16] <cradek> I am confused about why RS274NGC_MAX_PARAMETERS is in _required
[01:30:56] <cradek> (I'm not sure I know all I know about this stuff)
[01:31:12] <dgarr> i noted that, don't know why --maybe there was/is some test on it
[01:31:24] <dgarr> i will remove 5400 from the _required array
[01:34:17] <dgarr> it doesn't seem to write the value of RS274... to the var file
[01:36:05] <cradek> I see that here: for (; k < RS274NGC_MAX_PARAMETERS; k++) {
[01:36:41] <cradek> (wow, save_parameters is not easy to follow)
[02:13:03] <dgarr> i revised patch removing entries for _required_parameters, still has debugging prints (git commit --amend is neat)
http://www.panix.com/~dgarrett/stuff/0001-Numbered-parameters-for-current-tool-items.patch
[04:05:51] <cradek> dgarr: tool touchoff seems broken - I wonder which of us broke it...
[04:06:09] <cradek> [with your patch]
[04:14:36] <cradek> ... me
[04:14:38] <cradek> dangit
[04:43:48] <CIA-3> EMC: 03cradek 07master * r4888347d136e 10/src/emc/ (iotask/ioControl.cc rs274ngc/interp_convert.cc): fix tool touchoff for nonrandom machines
[05:28:27] <CIA-3> EMC: 03cmorley 07master * r6bd2b5e802be 10/src/emc/usr_intf/pncconf/ (pncconf.glade pncconf.py): Revamp axis scale calculations, fixes for metric
[05:39:24] <CIA-3> EMC: 03cmorley 07master * r25e7a7d54ee5 10/src/emc/usr_intf/pncconf/pncconf.glade: Increase spinbox max for tuning metric configs.
[07:34:08] <micges_work> good morning
[08:08:38] <alex_joni> hi
[09:56:41] <alex_joni> micges_work: any luck with that automatic feed override?
[09:59:38] <micges_work> I didn't test it yet
[10:02:46] <micges_work> on all my machines I have velocity control module that allows to change speed during program execution, so I'm tring to add this option to it
[11:37:55] <alex_joni> cool
[12:52:18] <micges_work> alex_joni: What do you think about adding M66.1 gcode which behave like M66 but on timeout error will be shown?
[13:10:15] <jthornton_> micges_work: is there a way to monitor the variable #5399 and act on that for M66?
[13:11:53] <micges_work> surely it is, but you must create conditions to load all gcode to preview in AXIS
[13:12:21] <micges_work> or on first M2 in condition AXIS will stop loading preview
[13:14:11] <jthornton_> ttul
[13:14:28] <micges_work> just a suggestion
[13:38:32] <alex_joni> micges_work: sounds good to me
[13:59:14] <sam0737> hi there
[17:29:25] <christel> [Global Notice] Hi all, as you may be aware we're in the process of changing irc daemon -- as we are nearing completetion, we're now looking for some help in testing the new software in preparation for the move. If you would be happy to help test our new ircd, please /mode yournick +w for further information on how you can help. Thanks in advance!
[18:17:10] <micges> hi seb_kuzminsky
[18:17:34] <micges> any luck with encoder velocity Nan?
[18:23:17] <seb_kuzminsky> hi micges, no i havent looked at it yet
[18:23:23] <seb_kuzminsky> just got back from a 2-week business trip
[18:23:30] <seb_kuzminsky> hopefully this week sometime
[18:49:28] <micges> ok
[20:52:59] <skunkworks_> cradek: are you planning on putting touchy on your lathe?
[20:53:26] <cradek> yes, probably eventually
[20:53:31] <cradek> I sure like not needing a keyboard
[20:54:19] <cradek> to write/edit/debug programs, I go over to a full computer with kb/mouse/chair running AXIS. I don't need AXIS at the machines.
[20:55:32] <skunkworks_> :) stuart is smiling.
[20:56:18] <cradek> ha
[20:56:24] <cradek> afaik he's not using it yet...
[20:56:48] <skunkworks_> no - but I remember a rant about not needing a tool path preview on the actual machine.
[20:57:25] <cradek> stuart ranting?? nahhh
[20:57:54] <skunkworks_> ;)
[22:18:49] <skunkworks_> http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gcode_main.html#sub:G61,-G61.1,-G64:
[22:25:24] <skunkworks_> g61.1? I didn't even know it was in emc... exact path vs exact stop? Is exact path - if a arc tangents a line it doesn't stop - or lines segments are colinear? and exact stop (g61.1) stops at all endpoints?
[22:25:43] <cradek> don't tell anyone but g61 and g61.1 do the same thing
[22:25:48] <skunkworks_> heh - ok
[22:25:57] <skunkworks_> I read way too far into that one ;)
[22:26:09] <cradek> you can get "touches every corner, only stops if needed" with g64 P[tiny]
[22:26:58] <skunkworks_> cool
[22:44:22] <jt-plasma> OH I'm stoked... the tip voltage meter works... now on to THC
[22:44:41] <jt-plasma> my first cut with the Mesa THC hooked upt
[22:44:44] <jt-plasma> up
[22:44:47] <skunkworks_> screenshot!
[22:44:48] <skunkworks_> ;)
[22:45:11] <jt-plasma> hmmm
[22:48:53] <jt-plasma> http://imagebin.ca/view/lbkFvF.html
[22:49:53] <jt-plasma> * jt-plasma gets back to work on testing the comp
[22:50:06] <skunkworks_> Great work!
[22:55:03] <jt-plasma> next test is to test the correction based on my setting and the actual volts
[23:20:47] <jt-plasma> in dev the combination of right arrow and down arrow produce a coordinated move but the left and up arrow do not... is something broken?