On 06/04/2015 07:13 AM, Ron Bean wrote: >> If you need one computer to see the GUI and one for realtime >> effects, why not just start out with a real computer and load Linux and >> LinuxCNC on it? > > The problem I see is that, going forward, "real" computers that are > graphics-capable are becoming less and less "real time capable". We can > work around it for now by selecting motherboards that still work well > with LinuxCNC, but they could become scarce in the future (see various > threads here about selecting motherboards). Single-board computers like > the BBB, which are specifically built for real-time and don't care about > graphics, are the solution to that. > > I don't see any particular reason to run a GUI on the same machine (or > at least, on the same CPU) as the motion controller. Although if you do, > one solution might be something along the lines of the BBB, but two CPUs > and a PCI slot for a GPU. Another solution might be something like a BBB > that plugs into a PCI slot in a generic PC. Either one eliminates the > USB connection, which is the real problem.
I have wanted a two computer setup for quite a while. The idea is to have the motion control computer on the back of the machine, so cable runs to motors and sensors can be short. Then have the UI computer on the front or wherever the operator needs to move it. This can be done now by piping graphics and keyboard information between the two computers. It seems to me that it would be more efficient to pipe just status and UI commands. It also seems that each computer might be optimized for their respective duties. So far, to me, the distance between theory and practice has favored the single computer setup. -- Kirk Wallace http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ http://www.wallacecompany.com/E45/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
