Coordinated motion for Do-more...

[Controls Guy]

Just the terminals would be a pain.  Would you still be able to coordinate well via the backplane if you split to multiple modules?  Might you need to make an inter-module connection outside the backplane?  Across the module fronts, or a multi-slot module?

[BobO]

That's one option. We've lever done it, but I'm sure it could be done.

[Controls Guy]

Could you comment on the following estimates of the situation:

1) If multiple axes are spread across multiple modules, I assume communication directly between the two modules will be necessary for coordinated motion.  The update time per axis will presumably need to be much faster than maximum scan times in CPU's, so you can't use the CPU as an intermediary, and it would be an unreasonable hit to the CPU anyway,

and

2) I assume that if module to module communication is necessary then the 205 backplane is not an option.  First, it was probably not designed with capability for module-initiated comms, especially ones directed not at the CPU but at another module (although the ECOM....).  Then, even if module to module comms were theoretically possible, they would probably not be feasible on the scale needed for axis coordination.

Is that all about a reasonable assessment?

[BobO]

Could you comment on the following estimates of the situation:

1) If multiple axes are spread across multiple modules, I assume communication directly between the two modules will be necessary for coordinated motion.  The update time per axis will presumably need to be much faster than maximum scan times in CPU's, so you can't use the CPU as an intermediary, and it would be an unreasonable hit to the CPU anyway,

and

2) I assume that if module to module communication is necessary then the 205 backplane is not an option.  First, it was probably not designed with capability for module-initiated comms, especially ones directed not at the CPU but at another module (although the ECOM....).  Then, even if module to module comms were theoretically possible, they would probably not be feasible on the scale needed for axis coordination.

Is that all about a reasonable assessment?

Yep.

[Controls Guy]

That's what I thought.  Thanks!

[BobO]

Which is why the most viable answer is to put it all on one card...even if the one card were a double wide.

[odwyerpw]

A single module with a ZipLink Style Termination Strip? You could use the high density connectors and cable from the 32 channel units?

[BobO]

A single module with a ZipLink Style Termination Strip? You could use the high density connectors and cable from the 32 channel units?

We may end up doing exactly that.

[cyounger]

Are you all still continuing on this project.  We have been discussing here programming production equipment with G code that way it frees up us controls guys from having to make program changes in the plc and motion controllers to meet productions needs and wants. If we could get the package to allow the process guy to enter in a G code on the HMI and then run the equipment this coould be a really powerful tool.
Thanks
Chris

[BobO]

We will likely still do it, but have reevaluated priorities and are doing another project first. I like the idea.

[DLTimmons]

We will likely still do it, but have reevaluated priorities and are doing another project first. I like the idea.

Are we working at the same place. That's our normal operation mode.

One side note we just started up a machine with a 200 hp motor that getting to 1 encoder count by just taking the step velocity and multiplying by a scaling parameter then sending that out a analog output to the drives.