[DSF Extension] ObjectSkipper - skip failing objects in a print

gtj0

Very nice Manuel!

T3P3Tony

@wilriker great! are the M5x commands intended to be gcodes that will be generally supported for these actions? if so is it worth reserving them as such in the gcode documentation on the RepRap Wiki as well ad our dozuki?

wilriker

@T3P3Tony I don't know if anyone thinks of standardizing these as M-Commands but we could reserve them so they are there already, i.e. creating our own standard everyone else has to follow. But then we would need to discuss first if they are appropriate like they are right now.

T3P3Tony

@wilriker indeed - first question would be if they clash with anything used in CNC or other G/M code uses.

wilriker

@T3P3Tony at least they are not listed at RepRap GCodes wiki - that's why I chose these. This should cover NIST standard (I can check though). Not sure if there is any other relevant standard it there.

EDIT: I checked NIST Standard and it does not contain any M-code in the 50s range.

dc42

May I suggest that any new M codes intercepted by add-ons be given high numbers, for example in the range 2000 to 3000. It's not just NIST we have to worry about, it's also current and future versions of Marlin, LinuxCNC, Fanuc etc. Gcode that RRF may have to emulate in future.

wilriker

@dc42 I think your idea is good but I am a bit torn on this one specifically. This might be a feature that will make it into firmwares at one point. If we set (and document) it to be in the say 2000s range do we expect that other firmwares will adapt such large numbers?

dc42

@wilriker said in [DSF Extension] ObjectSkipper - skip failing objects in a print:

@dc42 I think your idea is good but I am a bit torn on this one specifically. This might be a feature that will make it into firmwares at one point. If we set (and document) it to be in the say 2000s range do we expect that other firmwares will adapt such large numbers?

In the past, other firmwares have almost always done their own thing and ignored what has been done before. For example, RRF was first with support for mixing tools (M567), but Repetier first and then Marlin chose a different command to support mixing tools. Likewise, RRF was first with a code for pressure advance (M572), but Marlin chose a different command. RRF chose M208 to define axis limits, but Marlin subsequently ignored that and used M208 for a different purpose. This is despite the RRF commands always being documented at https://reprap.org/wiki/G-code before being implemented.

So i don't think you have much chance of getting other firmwares to use the same codes.

wilriker

@dc42 Hope dies last we say in Germany.
Seriously: good points. I will move the default values into the 2000s range with the next version. And they are configurable from command line anyway.

dc42

I just did a search for "gcode m50" and found that LinuxCNC already uses it. http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gcode/m-code.html

wilriker

Ooohhh, Feed Override control. That would be "fun" to filter out.