Re: EMC vs. Galil Motion card (was: Will emc work for me?)

[Ray Henry <rehenry-at-up.net>]

Scratch might be easier but EMC's interpreter will run stand alone and 
produce canonical motion commands from a GCode file.  If you translated these 
commands into Galil rather than starting from scratch you might gain the 
benefit of the machine world view and verifying of GCode that are done by the 
interpreter.  The cost/benefit over starting from scratch would depend upon 
the Galil language.

Tickle/Tk is available for Mac and for MS-Windows so the tkemc gui can be 
moved.  Several list members worked on fixing tkemc and emcsh to fit a 
MS-Windows environment and demonstrated it at NAMES in April.  We might be 
able to write a new extended wish shell like emcsh that would communicate 
with the Galil.  The advantage of that is that we could retain the present 
look and feel and keep the Galil stuff current with further development of 
that gui if that is important.

We could also write a tickle script that would serve as a setup program for 
the Galil card.

Ray


On Saturday 06 July 2002 07:53, Carl wrote:
> On 07/05/02, at 07:16 PM, "Markus Meyer" <meyer-at-mesw.de> said:
> >So the Galil card follows a very different
> >concept, because all critical calculation takes place on the board rather
> > than on the main CPU of the computer, as it does with EMC.
>
> Which is why it works even with Windows running on the CPU. ;-)
>
> >AISE it would be far easier to write a frontend for the Galil card that
> > shows some nice buttons and additionally write some script that
> >translates GCode into the native Galil card language than hacking EMC to
> >support the card, effectively throwing away (1) and (2).
>
> Would the emc frontends be useful as building blocks for such an effort?
>
> If this is getting to be a FAQ here, then there is obviously some demand.
> Is anyone working on it already?