Re: RE: G92

Hi Tim

I love a good rant! Thanks for recognizing the heart of my complaint.
Three votes and I promise not to count them the way the State of Florida
does. <g> Perhaps we need an impartial ballot counter. Don't you love
democratic software!

We may need to do some more digging. I didn't look at the old
interpreter code when I wrote the rant against calling this a glitch.
The problem may be in the task program. They were changed quite about
the same time. I've got to take a little more time with Les' post.

HTH

Ray

>    From: "Tim Goldstein" <timg@...>
> Subject: RE: G92
>
>
> <rant>
> This is EXACTLY how I want EMC to act. Like Jon E. I am running the old
> RH 5.2 version of EMC because it behaves as I want it to and it handles
> G92 just like Fred's commercial control does. Once you set a G92 it
> stays there. I never tried canceling it with a G99, but I can attest to
> the persistence through all other codes. Reliable and predicable.
>
> Ray, I know that Tom Kramer says it is suppose to work the way it does,
> but it is a mess. I would guess that I am pretty safe to say that Tom
> has never had hundreds of pounds of iron acceleration with thousands of
> pound of force in a direction that only he would seem to be able to
> figure out. I would propose that if the user community says it works
> wrong it doesn't matter how much documentation the programmer produces
> to show they are right, it is still not right. The old interpreter
> handles G92 in the way I understand users of commercial controllers
> expected it to. That is far from the case in the new rendition.
> </rant>
>
> Tim
> [Denver, CO]