Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post Reply
eagletree
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:15 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by eagletree » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:17 pm

I have my Shapeoko 2 on order. I will be getting both the stock board (Arduino/GRBL?) and the upgrade for Tinyg. My goal is to assemble with the Tinyg depending on complexities of the computer software installation.

The computer I plan to use is a leftover Dual G5 Mac Pro. It has 10.5 OSX on it which is the highest possible upgrade (and why it is not longer being used as a desktop). I also downloaded Ubuntu 12.04.4 as a possible OS to run on this box.

No CAD will occur on this box. It is just the computer that will sit in my shop and communicate with the Shapeoko 2. At present, I'm assuming will we also generate our gcode on our normal workstations and transfer to this shop machine, but admittedly, I'm not certain what we will be using, I was originally planning to get MeshCam, then realized that many people appear to be using OSS code for CAM. I also just realized that BlenderCam exists and need to research that too since we are heavy Blender users. But, in my still naive view, I'm seeing this shop machine as a TinyG communication box and wireless node from our regular workstations.

Would it be easier to use the box with it's OSX 10.5.x or, are the various software packages involved in connecting to the TinyG going to work better running Ubuntu? It would be most effortless to leave it on 10.5, but not if people have trouble with the comm to the TinyG from OSX.

eagletree
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:15 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by eagletree » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:10 am

I may have answered my own question based on the software workflow I've tentatively ferreted out below. If I'm correct about this workflow, the path of least resistance, if using an old Mac (10.5) as a controller computer, is likely to keep it on OSX. If I may, I still would like viewpoints on whether this workflow is realistic, and if so, reliable. Here is what I came up with to use the Shapeoko 2 and TinyG.

Software workflow

CAD - generate 3D model saved as STF
  • Blender
    OpenSCAD (quick for trivial but exact modeling)
CAM - generate gcode from STF Load gcode/Send gcode to serial connection/modify gcode/Machine Settings Comm Library for Serial Connection
Driver for Serial Port over USB

jarretl
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:50 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by jarretl » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:02 pm

Only thought would be making sure that the max version of java available to OSX leopard meets the requirements for the control softwares you had listed (UGS, or tgFX).
Leopard was before apple moved to using sun/oracle's java directly and still issued their own versions, so not sure what the latest java version that was made available to that system would be though apple updates (java 6 maybe?), or if you can work around by installing a newer version from oracle directly.

-J.
Shapeoko 2 #4043; DW660

eagletree
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:15 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by eagletree » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:11 pm

Thank you for that. I will check it when I start bringing this machine up to current (as current as it can be anyway).

If anyone sees a flaw in the product list, please do let me know. I especially would not want to leave an erroneous list like this uncorrected for those who search up the flow as I tried. They could end up taking the above untested list as gospel.

seigenblues
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:32 am
Location: pacific nw

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by seigenblues » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:49 pm

I had some bad luck using the universal g-code sender with tinyG -- after jogging the machine a bit with the +/- xy buttons, it would lock up and have to be reset. Still looking for a better solution.
Batch 4 Shapeoko #837, dual y & dw660
Shapeoko2, TinyG w/ dw660, NEMA23 XY.

eagletree
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:15 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by eagletree » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:48 am

Is that possibly a flow control issue? I haven't looked to see if RTS/CTS is implemented on the USB<->serial connection. I had years of interfacing with serial connections where XON/XOFF would leave one or both end-points requiring reset.

Doesn't the tgFX replace the sender functionality if G-code is being provided from another application?

seigenblues
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:32 am
Location: pacific nw

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by seigenblues » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:50 am

i had zero confidence in tgfx after some of their UI bugs. It looks like the devs are switching to working on Chilipeppr, which looks great:

http://chilipeppr.com/tinyg

will give it a go tonight.
Batch 4 Shapeoko #837, dual y & dw660
Shapeoko2, TinyG w/ dw660, NEMA23 XY.

seigenblues
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:32 am
Location: pacific nw

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by seigenblues » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:04 pm

I had great results using Chilipeppr to send a job of moderate complexity to TinyG. It worked great. Really like the ability to send pause/resume commands.

In getting it going, i had to install the go language on my mac to set up a JSON . I use homebrew to manage my packages, so it was as easy as

Code: Select all

$ brew install go
$ export GOPATH=/Users/$USER/gosrc
$ cd $GOPATH
$ git clone https://github.com/johnlauer/serial-port-json-server.git
$ cd serial-port-json-server
$ go get
$ go build
$ ./serial-port-json-server
Batch 4 Shapeoko #837, dual y & dw660
Shapeoko2, TinyG w/ dw660, NEMA23 XY.

eagletree
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:15 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Linux vs OSX to TinyG

Post by eagletree » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:37 pm

I'd not heard of it but it appears macports has a compiler and runtime for go. I will check it out. Still awaiting the arrival of the mill.

Post Reply