fix for #164
评论 (7)
#2 – samcoinc 于 2018-08-13
It has been a while since I have played with this branch but I think there is an extra pin that needs to be set.
This was from rob
– Add a HAL pin, motion.spindle-tracking-gain (range 0.0 to 1.0) to
control how aggressive position tracking is. 1.0 is stock behavior, 0.0 is
no position tracking.
IIRC I was playing with .5
sam
#3 – SebKuzminsky 于 2018-08-13
There is no new hal pin in this PR.
#4 – samcoinc 于 2018-08-13
hmm – this is what I had been testing
feature/spindle-sync-overhaul-2.7-rebase
from robs..
https://github.com/robEllenberg/linuxcnc-mirror/tree/feature/spindle-sync-overhaul-2.7-rebase
Are there a lot of differences? The last commits on robs are from Nov 07, 2017
This is confusing (for me)..
sam
#5 – SebKuzminsky 于 2018-08-13
This is confusing for me too. @rene-dev can you explain this PR to me?
#6 – rene-dev 于 2018-08-13
whoops, I think I picked the wrong branch. It was supposed to be the real fix mentioned above.
#7 – rene-dev 于 2018-11-05
according to rob, there is more to it. He will collect
#1 – SebKuzminsky 于 2018-08-13
I made a throw-away integration branch containing this PR merged into master, and I ran @robEllenberg’s recipe (from #164) for showing the Z-velocity jitter (using the sim/axis/axis.ini config). Here is the result:
!spindle-sync-jitter-481-saa
For reference, here’s the result from the current tip of master with the quantized spindle encoder commits from this PR cherry-picked in (same config):
!spindle-sync-jitter-quant-encoder-saa
So, while I agree that master has a lot of Z-velocity jitter during this spindle-synced move, I don’t see the proposed PR making the situation better. Am I missing something here?