simulation

Or if you really want to do it like Fanuc (Which I feel is a perfectly awful way). It isn't hard to disable the output to your drives in hal (including short circuiting the feed back). But you will also likely find the simular problems with that solution as Fanuc controls have. Namely you may have problems if your simulation doesn't end exactly where it started. This is why our machine operators are forbidden from using the dry run or z lock modes on those controls. On our Fanuc machines if you screw up the position with those modes the only way to undo it is to power cycle the machine.

RobotMatic wrote: It is the second time that happens to me, the first one was with the tool radius compensation, what the developers say is fine, in cnc technology it is a big mistake, the compensation loses a segment of the trajectory at the entrance, and now this. The result is always a cheap alternative, not a professional one.

I am sorry that the answers are not what you hoped for.

Fundamentally the problem is that LinuxCNC is cheap software, and you tend to get cheap solutions.

We have proposed work-arounds that might get part way to what you want, and that work _now_ rather than at some unknown point in the future when somebody decides that they fancy looking at your enhancement ideas.

Maybe you think that LinuxCNC has a whole team of developers who are allocated jobs to do by a central controlling committee? That isn't the case at all. LinuxCNC isn't anyone's job. Not even on a part-time basis.

What would your proposal look like? Would it just be the equivalent of the existing Axis preview, but running in real-time? Running the preview in actual real-time would be relatively hard, but running it line-by-line might actually be quite easy. (And less tedious for the operator)

But then you have something rather close to what (I think) already exists. I think you can click on the G-code and cursor up/down to see what each line does in the preview. (I can't guarantee that this works at the moment, as I am working away from home, and nowhere near a LinuxCNC machine, I am on my Mac laptop in a hotel). Is your requirement for a way to _force_ your operators to perform this process?

Dear Andy. It's not about the answers, it's about the approach. The cheap solutions that you offer do not contemplate an operator who only uses the machine and who does not know about installations, configurations, real time. etc.

I hope that in the future Those who assign tasks in the project can understand what I am raising. Linuxcnc works great! I use it on very large machines, and there things change a lot. You put a piece of metal thousands of dollars and can not spoil it. Linuxcnc seems to be only oriented today to solve aspects that are very important but never contemplate in them a machine operator who only uses it and things should be easy.

among other things I teach cnc technology at Ituzaingo's technology pole in Argentina, I know the sim very well, I use it daily, I use Linuxcnc every day, the cheap option that you proposed to me is completely unacceptable in large machines.

I thank you for the time used to respond, of course I am not happy with the answers, but I am happy because they will surely reflect on the issue, although in 10 years no one has realized that Axis cannot test a program, just You can graph a G. code or show me at runtime where the tool is.

thank you thank you thank you

Is it safe to assume that the machine boots straight into axis and the operator only sees the axis gui?

So it's impractical to simulate at the machine, but why not have a separate computer for it, you could also use it for a programming station, data collection also

RobotMatic wrote: Dear Andy. It's not about the answers, it's about the approach. The cheap solutions that you offer do not contemplate an operator who only uses the machine and who does not know about installations, configurations, real time. etc.

This seems a fair comment. LinuxCNC was invented by US Government academics, and then picked up by hobbyists. It has not had _that_ much exposure in production environments. I think that Todd uses it in production, but given that he has suggested that his operators have an opinion about which controller they prefer, even they might not be the typical operator.
Stuart has been using a very large machine with LinuxCNC for many years (look at the age of this video ) and he machines very expensive parts of the aircraft industry. But, again, he is an enthusiast-owner-operator, not typical.

I hope that in the future Those who assign tasks in the project can understand what I am raising.

I thought I had made the point that _nobody_ assigns tasks. Nobody feels that they have the right to. What happens is that somebody sees something that could be better, and improves it, to their own specification, for their own reasons.
This is not the best way to make a great software package. But it is what we have.
Do you know any programmers? Do you fancy having a go yourself? Perhaps you can cajole, bribe or pay someone to add the features you want? (I would suggest discussing the concepts on the developers mailing list first, though)
To put this in perspective, I have now written some code for LinuxCNC, but I only started coding in C to fix a particular gap in the capability of LinuxCNC that I wanted to fix for my own purposes.

I am not a C programmer, I understand your comment, at the moment I am translating the information into Spanish, you can see the topic And I also collaborate detecting problems, you can see my topics -G85, G41, G42 now the simulator. is what I can do. I also promote the use of linuxcnc in my country, but understand, I am not a C programmer, you always say that, do it! as if all we use linuxcnc were programmers. Try to use a compensated trajectory on a lathe, and you will find the problem. If you use a milling machine as your example, the program testing is done outside, in a Cam system, I have already commented. I don't want to bother with this anymore, thanks, for me it was enough, thanks