Messages

1041

Galil / Re: Galil plugin version 4.6 available.

« on: May 24, 2014, 01:35:49 PM »

No,  I do not keep such a log.  Most of the work was to provide plugin that would work with Smart Term.  And then also one that works with the newer software from Galil.  I have not done anything with slaving.  I don't have a gantry machine.

Mach is the trajectory planner.  The Galil just follows the ball.  So Mach is outputting a trapezoidal profile and you will not change that.  In the plugin, we set VA and VD to the same value.  This value is pretty high as we usually want the Galil to follow what Mach is giving it as closely as possible.  You can try it, but your mileage may vary.  It is not something ANY of it was designed to do.

Steve

1042

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Re: Mach 4 and Galil

« on: May 23, 2014, 09:49:00 PM »

The Galil plugin takes trajectory data from Mach and converts it into a format that the Galil can use.  Some older controllers use Linear Interpolation.  The newer controllers use Contour mode.  The newest controllers will use PVT mode.  

There are no problems to be solved. The concepts for the plugin are not new and they are well understood.  We run Galil with Mach 3 with great success.  It is just a matter of testing all code paths in the Mach 4 plugin.  Like making sure that when the user hits Stop that it actually stops, etc...  You would not believe how many paths you have to account for just because we never know what the user will do.

Steve

1043

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports

« on: May 23, 2014, 09:37:48 PM »

OK FOUND the reason that the macros do not display. Fanuc macros are not directly useable by MACH4. There are enough differences as to make them not run.

(;-) TP

Care to elaborate?  If you tell us what is different, we will fix it.  If not, we won't know and we can't fix.

Steve

1044

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 and Galil

« on: May 21, 2014, 12:06:45 AM »

I feel like the Galil plugin will be done about a month after Mach4 is released.  Now, when is that?  I don't know at the moment because all of these requests are going to take time to implement.  And we'll need documentation too.  The problem is that I can't work on both Mach and Galil plugin at the same time.  I've tried it!  But it turns out that I actually need two hands on one keyboard.    So Mach first, Galil second.

The movement with the Galil is solid.  I even have it probing and homing.  But it needs MPG support and lots of work on the configuration dialog.  Meaning as of right now, I'm putting a lot of text parameters in a file by hand.  It needs polishing.  I'd call it 98% done.  If I had a solid week to work on it AND Mach didn't change in the interim, I could stick a fork in it.  But I run Ethernet controllers.  I don't have the means to test any PCI controllers, so that may take more time.  And ISA and USB Galil support has been dropped, so don't expect those to ever work with Mach 4.

The Galil is actually the oldest Mach 4 motion plugin.  (Hmm...  I wonder how that happened?)    It is also, by that virtue, the one that has had to be changed the most to hit a constantly moving target.

So, again, it really depends on how long it takes to get Mach released.  And I really can't nail that down at all right now.    Sorry.

My machine is a Matsuura MC500 with a 16 pod tool changer.  The tool changer is run completely from the Galil.  When the Galil plugin is released, it will be industrial strength at least on the Ethernet controllers that run analog servo driven 3 axis mills.  I can't speak to gantry systems, as I don't have one.

I have Mach 3 running my machine to perfection.  So don't discount that option either.  It is a MUCH better controller than the original YASNAC ever thought about being.  We have customers that are shipping new production machines to industrial environments with the Mach 3/Galil combo.  It rocks.

Steve

1045

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports

« on: May 20, 2014, 07:23:47 PM »

Mach4 does not like metric it goes mad

That is because I don't like metric and I go mad!    Seriously though, we are aware of it and we are working on it.

Steve

1046

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 and Galil

« on: May 20, 2014, 07:22:23 PM »

Two Issues to Clarify

Have Galil board:  Galil has a nice simple program language.  How to convert G code to Galil language.  Surely this has been done and completely checked out?  Can we have a single standard unified program for this--- checked for quality.  Any comments.

Second Issue:  Where are the motion control board guys on the critical path to completion of whatever they are working on?

Have a lathe Leblond 17x80 want to try Mach 4 now.  Nearly ready with mechanicals servo cabinet etc,

Galil can't do constant velocity with it's simple programming language.  Therefore, we do the trajectory planning and feed it to the Galil via a motion plugin.  This is just one of the reasons that G code doesn't "convert" well to the Galil command set.  BobCad did a post processor for their CAM software back around v19 to v21.  It worked for 2D stuff only.  But that was about as it got and it certainly wasn't a G code converter because it bypassed the G code completely.

I have a Galil plugin for Mach 4 that moves my machine quite nicely.  But it is not ready for prime time.  Lots of testing still to do.  Other motion controllers such as the parallel port, Ethernet Smooth Stepper, Vital Systems HiCON and DSP-MC are coming along as well. 

Steve

1047

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: ScreenSet Question

« on: May 16, 2014, 12:24:34 PM »

MPG is one area that you will see a huge improvement.  It will be up to the motion controller to support the MPGs, so no plugin required other than the one for the motion controller.  Basically, the motion controller will need to accept encoder inputs.  Most do.  If there is some sort of "encoder input" card/board/device, I'm sure a plugin can be written for it.

Steve

1048

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports

« on: May 16, 2014, 12:15:43 PM »

Just so you guys know...  There is nothing wrong with using CPU.  If it makes the machine more pleasant to operate with faster refresh rates, then there is no reason not to have it.  But there is a limit since we are running on top of an operating system.  I have on machine (pretty new) that I have set to 10ms refresh rates.  My older machines can't take as much.  So we decided to make that a "tunable" setting.  That way, you can get it to run on just about any machine in the XP era. 

It is just not the CPU though.  It has a lot to do with the video card as well.  Some video cards use the CPU to do the video processing!  Those are the ones that will eat CPU like it is going out of style with the faster refresh rates.

Steve

1049

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach 4 Bug Reports

« on: May 15, 2014, 10:56:59 PM »

You can lower the refresh rates in the screen editor.  Click on the top element in the Screen Tree Manager and it is the "Refresh Interval".  It defaults to 50ms.  100ms would be more of a Mach3 speed.

Steve

1050

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Export tool table

« on: May 15, 2014, 08:14:25 PM »

The LUA stuff is dry reading isn't it?!?!?!  I bought the books.  I don't think I finished any of them.  I instead search the internet for examples.  I can stay awake that way...

Steve