4. Why not use a micro controller over USB as a step generator
Short answer:
because it breaks the idea of the project - LinuxCNC as a machine controller.
Long answer:
If you wished to do rigid tapping with your USB-based controller - you would have to add the tapping code to your microcontroller.
USB will not allow reliable communication between the motion controller (LinuxCNC) and the motor controller (your micro).
Multiply that by other options and now you have basically made your micro controller into a motion controller.
This has been done in a fork of LinuxCNC - USB to a mesa 7i43 card in the araisrobo project (now uses machinekit AFAIK).
Now if someone added some cool option to LinuxCNC's motion controller you wouldn't be able to use it until you added it to your motion controller.
It also doesn't allow LinuxCNC's built-in scope and meters access to the micro controller's internal test points.
By using relatively 'dumb' hardware, we avoid that scenario - whatever LinuxCNC can do it can do with all hardware that supports the basic requirements.
You can even run an analog servo using the parallel port - just the performance would be low.
So is it a waste of time for simple I/O stuff? Yes, I guess you could say that - but when you look at the bigger picture it makes sense - LinuxCNC does a lot more than just simple step driven mills.
We prefer that the motion controller is in one place - LinuxCNC.
Now if you could figure out how to get USB3 to be low latency relatime...now you are talking!
em nghĩ dùng ethernet là lựa chọn tốt hơn, bản linuxcnc2.7 đã hỗ trợ ethernet realtime
dùng 7i80 giá 149usd
hoặc 7i92M giá 89usd
more info
http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/man/man9/hm2_eth.9.html
Lần sửa cuối bởi nhatson, ngày 10-01-2017 lúc 06:56:37 PM.