[H0bby_CNC]

https://youtu.be/dhFo9W1AG2g

Looking for a few beta testers. Send a PM with some details about your use case for beta testing.

[kstrauss]

Are user changes to PP required or is it completely plug-and-play?

[H0bby_CNC]

It was originally written as Plug & Play but was later changed to avoid people calling tormach tech support for a nonofficial IO board.

Two lines are added to the config files to enable this board.

Are user changes to PP required or is it completely plug-and-play?

[Mooser]

I'll be watching this. I've wanted the possibility to trip some relays (cycle end / M01 lights, air blast etc) but couldn't justify the cost of the Tormach version.
M

[kstrauss]

Others may disagree but for me a completely plug-and-play solution would be vastly preferable; I really don't want to have to bother with editing and then, possibly, correcting my typing mistakes. Merely providing the same capability for a few dollars less for the board would not convince me to forego the joys of no installation problems and Tormach support. And I'm reasonably computer literate (my career was in software development). Obviously others will have different opinions. Providing additional capabilities/ better packaging/ whatever might convince me otherwise.

[Fenichel]

Others may disagree but for me a completely plug-and-play solution would be vastly preferable; I really don't want to have to bother with editing and then, possibly, correcting my typing mistakes. Merely providing the same capability for a few dollars less for the board would not convince me to forego the joys of no installation problems and Tormach support. And I'm reasonably computer literate (my career was in software development). Obviously others will have different opinions. Providing additional capabilities/ better packaging/ whatever might convince me otherwise.

Agree.

[TurboStep]

... a completely plug-and-play solution would be vastly preferable...

...which is one reason why my version is "completely plug-and-play". Although my PathPilot installations are far from standard I don't feel the need to add any additional changes unnecessarily.

Attachment 409290

I developed this board essentially as a test for a more complex exercise, so I'll be making a few for myself but I have no intentions (at the moment) of selling them. I'm not sure how Tormach would react. The price of the parts is significantly less than the price of the Tormach board but obviously the cost of building, testing and support must be added to each unit with a proportion of the total development costs (plus profit). We should also not forget the cost of the PathPilot integration which Tormach is providing. The production quantities are probably not very high.

I must say I like the LinuxCNC M62-M65 codes, and even more so the M66 codes, but there are other, faster (propagation delays) ways to use them - with small changes to the hal file.
Step

[kstrauss]

.
I developed this board essentially as a test for a more complex exercise, so I'll be making a few for myself but I have no intentions (at the moment) of selling them.

Step

If you change your decision please let us know.

I have no idea how Tormach would react but having many sources of accessories would be very good for all users. Consider the creativity unleashed by competitors to the original IBM PC.

[Steve303]

https://youtu.be/dhFo9W1AG2g

Looking for a few beta testers. Send a PM with some details about your use case for beta testing.

I think instead of asking potential customers "What are you willing to pay?" you should first ask "How many are interested?". I would imagine knowing the market size (demand) would be the first step to establishing weather or not there is a demand. Then once you know what the market size is you can work backwards and figure out what your selling price might be for the market size.

Then come back and ask who is willing to buy at your asking price and see if the demand is still there. After your beta testing is complete and any bugs worked out this product might be a good candidate for a kick starter.

[H0bby_CNC]

Good comments by all. Thanks for your input. This is completely on the cheap. the board is a freely available board out of China for less than $10. We just developed firmware for it to make it work this way. There is about $25 dollars in material total needed to make this work. there are 2 drawbacks of this board however: 1- no USB isolation but a USB Isolator can be bought for $10. 2- there is no input isolation on this board so you will need to only use dry contacts or implement your own.

We are considering releasing the firmware in binary form, possibly on a donation basis. We have little interest in making a large profit but covering development time would be nice. We did consider selling kits in the past but have moved away from that idea.

Relay Board
USB Isolator

We would still like to beta test with a few people to insure a completely functional device. We wouldn't recommend this for a production environment, but consider it a great solution for the home shops.

[rdsi]

Yeah I understand the person that just wants plug & play especially if your in business. For the enthusiast or if you just want some I/O on the cheap the Tormach MESA board already has an extra port not being used with 17 I/O lines.

I've already used 4 of these for relay outputs to control various things. You can create some user defined macros M1xx or modify the ini/hal files to map them to M62-M65 & M66.

This is what I came up with here & here.

Although I'm using a 7i92 MESA board you can do the same with the standard 5i25 boards too.

This schematic show 1 of the 4 circuits I've added:

So I added my air solenoids to the back access panel:


The FRL is for the PDB & the 2 FR's with solenoids or for my ETS and Fogbuster.

All for less than the Tormach USB I/O option.

[jwatte]

I would love to turn a relay to M07. How different is that from the M62 or M1xx approach?

Update: I meant M7 -- I already have flood coolant on M8.

[H0bby_CNC]

Looks like this project is a bust at least for now. The latest batch of boards from China have a different microcontroller than the original development board we wrote firmware for. The new boards have a Nuvoton N76E003 which I don't currently have a development toolchain or a programmer for. They saved a few cents with the mcu swap and killed this project in the process.

The code can easily be ported to an Arduino or ESP8266. This may become an open source project after all.

[Steve303]

The code can easily be ported to an Arduino or ESP8266. This may become an open source project after all.

That's too bad about the board's micro-controllers having changed. I am sure there are a few PathPilot users who would be interested in adding Arduino functionality.

[jwatte]

If you want to use the M64/M65/M66 codes with a microcontroller, I whipped up the following for Teensy 3.2 boards:
https://github.com/jwatte/teensy_tormach_usbio
You could then use that board to in turn drive a relay or whatever. Not as snazzy as all-in-one, but it solves the "arduino-like interface" problem.
https://amzn.to/2RzaNEd

[rdsi]

I would love to turn a relay to M07. How different is that from the M62 or M1xx approach?

So Tormach remaps M7, M8 & M9 so as to operate their SmartCool if attached. If you're not going to use SmartCool you can change these mappings to your own handler or modify the Tormach routines to your liking.

The remap statements are in: "~/tmc/configs/tormach_mill/tormach_base_mill.ini"
The remap handlers are in: "~/tmc/configs/tormach_mill/python/remap.py".

You can read all about this subject here: Remap Extending G code & Extending LinuxCNC

So yes you can but it will take a little work.

Of course Tormach offers a solution for those that want to pay: 37168 - SmartCool Multi-Cool Module $195, 37167 - SmartCool Starter Kit $695 or $890. Since you need both for the M7 output that's a lot if you don't need or want SmartCool.

When I get some time I'll probably redo M7 to control my Fog Buster instead of using the M1xx approach.

[TurboStep]

...If you're not going to use SmartCool you can change these mappings to your own handler or modify the Tormach routines to your liking.

Just connect the "coolant-mist" signal to an output of your choice in the hal file.
Works for me.
Step

[jwatte]

Yeah, the main problem with that is that it requires re-applying after each update.

The Teensy firmware seems to integrate fine with the PathPilot, so I can put air blast on M64P0 and call it good. (I could even mod the firmware to do intermittent air blast on a timer.)

I wonder if there's a convenient hook to always turn it off at M30, though. Or if that requires modifications that need to be re-made each update?

[kstrauss]

If you want to use the M64/M65/M66 codes with a microcontroller, I whipped up the following for Teensy 3.2 boards:
https://github.com/jwatte/teensy_tormach_usbio
You could then use that board to in turn drive a relay or whatever. Not as snazzy as all-in-one, but it solves the "arduino-like interface" problem.
https://amzn.to/2RzaNEd

I realize that the touch sense capability is Teensy specific but is there anything else Teensy specific in your example? That is, will similar code work to interface an Arduino board that uses the Atmega32U4 if I change the VID/PID in the 40-teensy.rules file? I'm anxious to try some ideas and I don't have a Teensy here to play with...

[TurboStep]

Yeah, the main problem with that is that it requires re-applying after each update.

Yes of course. This was a response to rdsi's post regarding the remapping of the M-codes.
All you would need to do is copy paste 3 consecutive lines from one hal file to another. Not a great deal. Tormach don't release a new version every day!
Step