Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fixed G10 and G92 offsets #791

Merged

Conversation

Paciente8159
Copy link
Owner

  • fixed G10 offset when G91 is active and ignoring G92 coordinates
  • fixed G92 calculations relative to current coordinate system
  • making non modal commands sync (except G53) to prevent coordinate WCO to be applied ahead of time

- fixed G10 offset when G91 is active and ignoring G92 coordinates
- fixed G92 calculations relative to current coordinate system
- making non modal commands sync (except G53) to prevent coordinate WCO to be applied ahead of time
@Paciente8159 Paciente8159 added bug Something isn't working needs: testing needs: testing core: parser core: command and gcode parsing labels Nov 25, 2024
@Paciente8159 Paciente8159 linked an issue Nov 25, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@tomjnixon
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, i've had a go with this, and G10 seems to behave as I'd expect now.

I'm not sure about G92 though. I've never used that before, but it seems to behave strangely.

The new g92_offset calculation looks right if target is the raw value provided in the command, but this offset is still applied:

target[i] += parser_parameters.coord_system_offset[i] + parser_parameters.g92_offset[i];

It also seems like the g92_offset calculation is always applied to all axes, but it should only be applied to specified ones.

When i work around those issues it seems to work, though i'm not sure what the behaviour of G10 L20 should be in the presence of a g92 offset.

@Paciente8159
Copy link
Owner Author

Has I said in #790 the G10 L20 will also be affected by G92.

I will test G92 to see if that is the case that is modified also for non declared ox explicit axis values.

- unified G10 and G92 processing path
- fixed G92 offset macro
- fixed P validation with homing disabled
@Paciente8159 Paciente8159 added tested: OK tested: OK and ready to integrate and removed needs: testing needs: testing labels Nov 27, 2024
@Paciente8159 Paciente8159 merged commit 04ad6f7 into master Nov 27, 2024
32 checks passed
@Paciente8159 Paciente8159 deleted the 790-bug-behaviour-of-g10-l2-and-l20-in-incremental-mode branch November 27, 2024 09:52
@tomjnixon
Copy link
Contributor

Works great, thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working core: parser core: command and gcode parsing tested: OK tested: OK and ready to integrate
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[BUG] behaviour of g10 l2 and l20 in incremental mode
2 participants