Hello Guest it is October 20, 2019, 10:45:39 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - smurph

511
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 Executing Gcode from LUA
« on: July 01, 2015, 02:55:51 PM »
For macro scripts (not screen or buttons scripts), The M code functions are available in the calling M code.

if state == 1 then
  m12();
end

Steve

512
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: No Script Engine Found for ...
« on: June 03, 2015, 11:01:08 PM »
Enable the mcLua plugin. 

Steve

513
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: need a little bit of help
« on: June 02, 2015, 11:18:50 PM »
Terry...  There is nothing in the core that is LUA.  The core has no knowledge of LUA.  The GUI has LUA.  And the macros can be scripted in LUA via the mcLua plugin.  When the core executes a macro script, all it does is hand it off to a plugin.  If someone wrote a VB script plugin, the scripts could be in VB.  If someone wrote a GUI, then they could use VB in that GUI. 

GUI --|  (LUA for the screen)
        Core ---|
                  Plugins. (LUA for the macro scripts)

The GUI is the HMI (Human Machine Interface).  It is where the rubber meets the road for the operator.  How the interface operates is up to the user/operator/integrator.  The Core is like an operating system.  In fact, I used to write operating systems so the Core modeled very closely to that of an operating system kernel.  It's sole purpose in life is to provide services to the application layer (GUI) and to interface with hardware via the plugins.  The plugins could be considered something analogous to operating system device drivers.  The core can be extended via plugins too.  This provides future flexibility. 

The LUA scripting uses the EXACT same API that we use in C++.  It IS the API.  It controls the core.  Not the other way around.  When you hit the Cycle start button, mc.mcCntlCycleStart() is used to tell the core to start executing.  So please tell me how LUA that controls the core should be controlled by the core?  How could the core ever have dominion over what the M code script wants to tell the core to do?  What if the core just said no?  That would be useless.  Your arguments are circular.

What keeps you from messing up when writing G code?  What protects you from yourself?  If you tell the spindle to plunge through your workpiece or the the table, what do you expect to happen?  It is up to you to write a good G ode program.  It is also up to you to write a good script program. 

One of the needs that kept popping up for Mach 3 was increased flexibility.  Therefore, that was a design goal for Mach 4.  I'll say it again.  There is nothing wrong with it.  There is no design flaw.  You can use it.  Or not.  Your choice.  You will be waiting a very long time for someone to make a system like you are wanting.  Maybe forever.

And waiting for what?  You make the machine do what you want ONE time.  Then, you use it!  I am an operator.  I did this very stuff on my very own machine.  It wasn't hard.  And I haven't touched it since I did all of the screen and scripts.  Not once!  All I do is go downstairs, turn the machine on, and run parts.  The machine is working for me, as you like to say.  The same way every time.  Just like I want it to. 

Steve

514
Once you get used to sizers, you will wonder why that has not been the way to do it from the beginning of time.  Yeah, there is a learning curve.  And some things are not possible.  Overlapping controls, for example.  However, you can still do that by NOT using sizers.  You can set the control positions manually if you want to.  But it is hardly worth the effort.  Sizers make expanding/aligning the controls with the parent window much easier just by laying out the sizers in a manner that does what you want.  Eventually, you will know how to get what you want and it becomes second nature.  And not using overlapping controls is a small price to pay for that.  You just have to change how you lay out the window in most cases.

As you mentioned, wxFormBuilder now includes support for generating LUA code.  I have not tried it, but it is nice to see that they did that.  But using a tool like that can certainly help you visualize how to work with sizers.  Generate a form and put some sizers on it and see what the code looks like.  I think that would be pretty awesome.  I'll have to play with it if I have time.

Steve

515
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: need a little bit of help
« on: June 02, 2015, 04:55:24 PM »
You are correct!!!  It is prudent to check the API functions for error codes.  In examples, I don't write that stuff in, as it becomes time consuming.  But it is NEEDED for production scripts to ensure that when things go wrong, it gets handled properly.  In the API docs, most of the examples are in C.  Some of the functions have LUA examples.  But the C examples use the error codes and can be used to deduce what they would be in LUA. 

Here is a snippet of a manual tool change M6 macro.
Code: [Select]
    -- M6start stuff here....

    --Here, we process an EVT_MACRO_HOLD and enter the macro hold state.  We can jog there!
    mc.mcCntlSetLastError(inst, "Press Cycle Start to finish the tool change.");
    wx.wxMilliSleep(100); -- wait a few so that the GUI can retrieve the message before the machine changes state.
    --  A sleep is not generally a good idea to use.  But in this case, it is harmless as the wait is minimal. 
    local rc = mc.mcCntlToolChangeManual(inst); 
    -- execution resumes from here when the user presses Cycle Start or Cycle Stop or some sort of E-stop or disabling of the machine.

    -- but in the mean time the user can Jog, toogle switches, stand on your head, or do anything else he likes!

    -- We check the rc of mc.mcCntlToolChangeManual() because the user might have aborted
    -- the tool change by pressing Cycle Stop.
    if (rc == mc.MERROR_NOERROR) then
        -- the user has not aborted, finish the tool change.  M6end stuff.
        ...
    end

Steve

516
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: need a little bit of help
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:11:32 PM »
Terry, I think you are missing the point.  G code is NOT a programming language in the classical sense.  It is a command language.  It has no logic statements without the macro B stuff.  No way to control the flow at all sans the simple sub routine mechanism at all.  For example, what is the G code to test that machine movement has been completed?  What in G code notifies the operator of the machine that the G code is complete?  I mean standard G code.  Not a scripted macro.  M00?  M01?  What action/event is taken by the G code if "G00 X0Y0" is executed and then completed?  Nothing.  The machine executed the code and then just sits there like a bump on a log waiting for the operator to do something else.

Macro B is not another language.  It is an extension of the G code command set.  It executes in the same context as the regular G code.  Therefore it is an apples and oranges comparison.

Waiting on an event in a PLC with a loop is controlling program flow.  It is a LESS efficient way of doing so!  Ladder with VB is an extension just like Macro B is an extension to G code.  It operates in the same "program" context.  It is the same interpreter on the same device.  So how would you take TWO PLCs and make them work with each other?  That is a better example.  You will HAVE to use flow control mechanisms to prevent a race condition in one or the other PLC.  Because you are now executing code in two different environments/devices/contexts.  Is it a kludge?  Certainly not.

With that HUGE thing said, there is no possible way to integrate G code and LUA to the extent you are talking about.  Simply because G code can't really "communicate" with anything to that extent.  Unless we also interpret LUA along side of G code with the same interpreter, then having what you describe is simply not possible.  And then users would have to sprinkle LUA in with their G code just like you had to sprinkle VB in with your ladder logic.  Terry...  you have to distinguish what is a dream and what is reality.

In my example code above, it uses a semaphore like var to control the execution.  Please explain to me how that will not work on different machines?  Or for that matter, how would C/C++ mutexes and semaphores not work the same on different PCs?  If that were the case, EVERY windows program would have to be custom made for EACH PC.  That is not the case.  I don't want to argue, but what you are saying is simply not the case and I feel it a disservice to the rest of the community to let such a notion stand.

There is nothing wrong.  There is no design flaw.  It is working as intended to make the system as flexible as it can be.  It is the way it is for very good reasons.  The sooner you accept that and just move on, the happier you will be.  :)

Steve

517
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: need a little bit of help
« on: June 02, 2015, 03:43:35 AM »
The use of semaphores is a glutch fix that may or may NOT work across different machines/Pc's  Same with Mach3. Each PC can have different timing aspects to threads and what triggers a race condition. That has been proven many times in Mach3 I dought if controls are not in place to prevent it it will also occur in Mach4.

It should be the Programers job to make SURE that the 2 code systems are integrated to prevent it from occurring UNLESS you want it to run out of sync.  Syncronous ,Asyncronous I believe is the term.

I have used many systems that simply are designed to NOT allow an out of sync race condition to ocur UNLESS you requested it to do so.

WHY put the load on the OPs to prevent a race condition (You working for the machine (;-( ) When it should be the controllers job to prevent it in the first place. ( The machine working for you (;-) ).

Just a thought, (;-) TP

Terry...  come on now.  This is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  What PLC on the planet does not use semaphore like/type logic to control program flow?  It is not a glutch, kludge, or workaround.  It is the correct way to handle the logic. 

And you are right, it is the programmer's job to make sure that the program works.  When you are programming a script, you just became that programmer!  We give you a plethora of tools to work with too.  You have the ability to make the controller do as you wish.  If you do the job right, the machine will work for you from that point on.  But there is NO WAY that we can guess what the script programmer's intentions for the script are and protect him from himself.  I guess we could if we constrained the script environment to only operating in a certain way.  But we just threw flexibility out the window!

Yeah, there is a learning curve.  No doubt.  It will not be everyone's cup of tea.  But some people don't build or convert their machines either.  Some buy them ready to run.  It is the thing I struggle with all of the time.  I squeak when I walk so I tend to not want to pay much for anything that I even remotely think I could handle!  But I don't have a lot of time to learn new things either.  Catch 22!  I usually err on the side of cheapness and end up finding/making the time to learn so that I can do it myself.  :)

Steve

518
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: need a little bit of help
« on: June 02, 2015, 02:37:16 AM »
The "better" way to do this stuff is to use the PLC script in conjunction with a button script.  Make a global var in the Load script to work with.  Something like "myAction".  The button script simply sets myAction to something that the PLC script knows how to handle. 

load script:
Code: [Select]
-- make some global vars.
myAction = -1;  -- holds our action code.
myActionExecuting = 0;  -- is our action executing?  This is like a semaphore.

Button script:
Code: [Select]
if (myAction == -1) then
    myAction = 1; -- set to x20 and y30 offset from spindle.
end

PLC script:
Code: [Select]
if (myAction == 1) then
    mc.mcCntlGcodeExecute(inst, "G91 G00 X20Y30");  -- set to x20 and y30 offset from spindle.
    myActionExecuting = 1; -- mark that we are executing.
    -- The state of the machine will now NOT be idle.  It will be executing the G code.
    -- The PLC script runs top down, so the test below will not see the machine in the
    --  idle state until the code above has been completed.
end

...

mcState = mc.mcCntlGetState(inst);
if (mcState == mc.MC_STATE_IDLE and myActionExecuting == 1 and myAction == 1) then
    --This part is so it will Zero axis`s after movement.
    mc.mcAxisSetPos(inst, 0, 0.000); --zero x axis
    mc.mcAxisSetPos(inst, 1, 0.000); --zero y axis 
    myActionExecuting = 0;  -- no longer excuting myAction
    myAction = -1; -- reset myAction to let another button do something.
end

If you think about it, this is how one would program any PLC where the PLC would be watching an input or register to control program flow.  Just think of a button as sort of way to update a PLC register.

Steve

519
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Mach4 Executing Gcode from LUA
« on: May 29, 2015, 02:06:41 AM »
I was speaking of GUI events.  Button presses, menu selection, etc...  Windows has an event loop.  The application updates it's controls with the very same event loop.  Signal events are external.

The MDI and GcodeExec functions load the G code into the interpreters and run it.  The movement happens at the motion controller and the motion controller updates the core with it's positions.  These positions are immediately sent to the Mach 4 screen.  If there were no long running button event, the screen would update within milliseconds.  There is no mystery location.  Each DRO has a list of what it is to control/display.  The values can be accessed with the scr.* LUA functions if you are wanting to track them.  I have never had a need to though.

I have no idea why a signal script would pass info to a screen load script.  The load script is loaded upon initial display of the screen.  Functions in the load script can be called if they are included in the load script.  But make no mistake, the load script is only actually run once.  It sounds like you need to use the PLC/signal scripts to me.  That is what should be used to process and input event.

One thing I have noticed is that there are a lot of fancy code snippets floating around for the LUA scripts.  And that is all great and wonderful.  But sometimes simple brute force code is best and in the end, more readable.  I'm not a LUA expert by any means, so I tend to keep it simple.

Signal script.  In the example, Input #1 is tied to a stop button on the panel.  If the machine is running, this will stop it just like hitting the stop button on the screen.  Input #2 is tied to a Start button.
Code: [Select]
    local inst = mc.mcGetInstance();
   
    if (sig == mc.ISIG_INPUT1) then
        if (state == 1) then
            mc.mcCntlCycleStop(inst);
        end
    end
    if (sig == mc.ISIG_INPUT2) then
        if (state == 1) then
            mc.mcCntlCycleStart(inst);
        end
    end

It is not elegant or fancy.  But it is damned effective. 

It is important to note that the signal script only gets called when a signal is changed.  So holding down the stop button will not continually call mcCntlCycleStop().  The signal changes state from low to high once when you press the button (the signal script is then called with state set to 1) and then from high to low when you let off the button (and the signal script is called again with state set to 0).

I didn't write the scripting manual.  So I really can answer that!  I'm sure it is a work in progress. 

Steve

520
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: G31.1, G31.2, G31.3 working?
« on: May 29, 2015, 01:09:47 AM »
Support for the extended probe commands is motion plugin dependent.  I'm not sure who supports them yet.

Steve.