#emc-devel | Logs for 2009-12-10

[05:41:20] <Dave911_> Dave911_ is now known as Dave911
[06:03:20] <Dave911_> Dave911_ is now known as Dave911
[06:25:20] <Dave911_> Dave911_ is now known as Dave911
[17:53:22] <Dave911_> Dave911_ is now known as Dave911
[19:15:50] <micges> about tlo_all_axes branch: how can we display in Axis all current tool information? status line is to short
[19:16:50] <jepler> that's a good question. I don't have an answer.
[20:08:21] <cradek> I don't like how it (now) shows the current tool's information, regardless whether those are the currently active offsets
[20:08:31] <cradek> maybe it's just a misfeature
[20:11:07] <micges> maybe new tab (I'm working on it to see what it looks)
[21:52:44] <micges> cradek: I propose something like this: http://imagebin.ca/view/oN3K2xkd.html
[22:30:51] <micges> some improoves: http://imagebin.ca/view/aVedP7ko.html
[22:33:35] <jepler> "fangle" and "bangle" are funny words.
[22:34:26] <micges> I know :)
[22:34:53] <seb_kuzminsky> bangles are not funny, they're awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk
[22:36:04] <micges> oh fangle did mean something too :)
[22:37:25] <jepler> I guess the question I have is: when is it important for the operator to review this information?
[22:38:05] <jepler> For instance, will it happen very often that the operator will want to review information about the current tool while not setting up information about any tool?
[22:38:24] <jepler> If reviewing and setting almost always happen at the same time, then the existing tool editor application may be the answer.
[22:38:42] <jepler> (well, except that it needs love on the tlo branch)
[22:41:06] <jepler> On the DRO tab DTGX is all caps because DTG is an abbreviation for Distance To Go
[22:41:27] <jepler> I'd rather see any of FA or FAngle or F Angle than FANGLE
[22:42:05] <jepler> Dia or dia instead of DIA, Tool or tool instead of TOOL
[22:42:08] <micges> jepler: this is only sheme, I've had hard part to parese all tlo offsets to python parts, and did it for tests for now
[22:42:19] <micges> parse*
[22:42:28] <jepler> also, the font is ugly because the top part of "O" is higher than the crossbar of "T"
[22:42:33] <jepler> (OK, now i'm just being silly)
[22:43:13] <micges> ok
[22:43:21] <micges> yes fonts are ugly :)
[22:44:02] <jepler> it took several years to add a second tab to the plot side of the screen; less than a year to add the next one. What will we do when we run out of room for more tabs?
[22:44:47] <micges> but finally python parts are updated correctly, so only polishing and tlo_all_axis can be widely tested
[22:44:59] <jepler> oh, and you probably need to modify what the F4 key does so that it cycles among the tabs
[22:45:06] <jepler> I bet it's hardcoded to switch between 2 tabs
[22:45:21] <micges> yes it's hardcoded
[22:45:23] <jepler> bbl
[23:31:37] <cradek> I think there'd be some value to showing all the *active* offsets on a tab like this
[23:32:20] <cradek> I think the status bar, which showed the offsets for a loaded tool, whether or not they (or some other tool's offsets) were in effect, has always been pretty much a bug
[23:32:59] <micges> ah yes I saw that
[23:33:03] <cradek> I don't care about fonts etc, and I don't care about running out of space for tabs (what?) but I think the behavior itself is confusing
[23:33:51] <micges> this is only proposition how can it looks like
[23:33:59] <cradek> I think a user will rightfully think these offsets are in effect
[23:34:57] <cradek> ok I understand - I don't care too much about exactly how it looks - I just want the behavior to make sense
[23:35:29] <micges> cradek: emcmodule has fields to get ACTIVE tool offsets
[23:36:05] <micges> but rest information is in tool table
[23:36:55] <cradek> yes the active offsets are important. IMO the rest of the information doesn't even need to be presented.
[23:37:07] <micges> so what now is possible is get ACTIVE tool offsets, and rest of tool information from current loaded tool
[23:37:21] <micges> Ah I see
[23:37:41] <cradek> I think showing ALL offsets [separately] would be a good feature
[23:37:42] <micges> that makes sense
[23:37:56] <cradek> IMO if we have a new tab, (and I'm not sure we want one), that's what should be on it
[23:41:14] <micges> cradek: thanks for opinion
[23:41:23] <cradek> as a concrete example: imagine I do T1 M6; G43 H2; G41.1 D0.255 L4. I'd have tool 1 loaded, offsets came from the tool table (tool 2), diameter and orientation came from the gcode.
[23:41:45] <cradek> showing all of T1's information on that tab in this case would be very confusing I think
[23:41:50] <cradek> welcome :-)
[23:42:11] <micges> right
[23:47:31] <micges> http://imagebin.ca/view/c9rDAIrS.html
[23:49:32] <micges> cradek: I use tlo_all_axes in one of my machine (using only G43.1, not tool table) and offseting looks ok for now
[23:49:43] <cradek> that's excellent
[23:49:55] <cradek> I think this change is very valuable, but I'm not sure what is best for AXIS
[23:50:06] <cradek> maybe we should consider them separately?
[23:50:15] <cradek> I need more time to think about it
[23:50:17] <micges> it is only XY offseting but it works
[23:50:29] <KimK> And on another subject, I noticed a machine that has more fixtures by using G154 P1 through G154 P..., what, I forgot, maybe P199 or so? Is something like this (more fixtures by some method) on the coming features list?
[23:50:58] <cradek> KimK: not that I know of. we have just the 9
[23:51:16] <cradek> bbl
[23:51:24] <micges> cradek: np, Axis changes can be only to adapt new table format, nothing more
[23:51:25] <KimK> OK. John says we need more fixtures in EMC2.