Tweakie - can you post your xml please.

Ian

OK took a look at this on the scope and here are some of my findings - not sure it's any real help though.

1) a G1 followed by a G0 blends - IMHO this is wrong
2) a G0 followed by a G1 doesn't - IMHO this is correct
3) sometimes E?P1 doesn't activate - unable to find out why. In your example the lines that don't activate are lines: 59, 63 and 67.
4) E?P0 deactivates at the END of a blend - but because of 1 this leads to perhaps unexpected and unsatisfactory results.
5) The time difference between an E?P1 activating and the first step pulse is ~ 0.05ms
6) The time difference between an E?P0 deactivating and the last step pulse is ~ 0.05ms (but because of 4 and 1 this can lead to unexpected results)
7) Not using E?P0 would mitigate 1) becaue blending does not cross other methods of activating outputs.
E?P? was apparantly designed by Art to allow on/off switching DURING a blended move. Your example doesn't appear to use this functionality and so because of 1) you suffer the downside without any apparant upside.

Ian

Thanks Ian for taking the time to look at this, your findings are much appreciated.

Tweakie.

Just for what it is worth this has been an ongoing problem and gets worse with later vers of MACH. I think there was a change in how Mach/VB relates to each other and it has made things worse for VB/Gcode interactions.

I can remember back when you NEVER needed a wait state and got repeatable results . NOW that same code will NOT work at all. It stumbles all over itself and skips code to boot.  Same code same computer new VER.

Just for what it is worth, (;-)

Terry - can you expand? There is NO VB in Tweakie's E?P? code. The two main issues as I see it are 1) and 3) in my post above.

Ian

Ian the M3 and other Mcodes  run in the VB side. IF you call any macro it could be VB releated

That should have read Gcode/VB interactions(;-)  At a certain Ver time line large delays started to appear in Gcode/VB.  Pre V.019 things ran very well and predictable. After that things took a lot of revamping to even run much less be reliable.

BUT that is just my findings.


(;-) OK I must have been absent one day at school WHAT is  E1P0/1?

OK I found it in my OLD notes. It was the trick Art added in for Plasma OEMs

Perhaps the future is not looking good for Mach control of lasers.

Do you have any ideas of how Version 4 will perhaps handle the E1P0/1 ?

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your time on this one.

Tweakie.

I am not in the V4 loop so maybe someone else knows

Tweakie have you back up versions to find a stable version that will still work? I know in plasma the standard is pretty much V.020.

Justa thought but have you though about using an axis DIR pin output to drive the laser?