FlyPT 6DOF/Stewart/Hexapod Interface for linear and rotating actuators

I’ve smelled it man!
I know it’s a bit tricky but I am sure you’ll manage
;-)

Crank angular pos. would also be useful for empirical comparison of the 3D model with the reality.

Don’t go fast, take your time

It's not tricky, it's a stupid error.
The cause for this was the idea of showing the 3D view not being affected by scale... So forgot some of the consequences.
In the new update, it's changing the view. Scale is applied on the translations of the pose transformation.

Version 1.7

Download in first post of this topic

Well, new version with:

-Some optimisations
-Corrected scale
-Output in mm/º relative to middle travel/angle of actuator
-Output in mm/º relative to bottom joint of linear actuator or horizontal plane for rotating actuators
-Output in %

To select, click the radio button (round check boxes in actuators output)

That’s helping - thanks

What is the value 42.0 in this case?

AHAH...

Ok new build on the first post...

Forgot to change signal when actuators work on the opposite side/direction
Copy/Paste, but no signal changed.

good!
we would need the same for bit output plz. (feature needed for sensor attachment freedom)
you could call it "neg135 - pos246" "pos. 123456" like @Thanos do.

increasing bit value while moving up for all actuators.

That's an easy one: 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything_(42)

(Sorry for that, it was too tempting )

Version 1.7.2
Download in the first post of this topic as usual.

-Now with "bit range" output
-In the rotating rig, it's possible to say what type of output to use:



Output swapped allows us to say, if we want:
-Output depending on direction of rotation (what we had until now - unchecked)
-Output increasing if rig goes up (checked)

Very good! Thanks.

Would you consider to implement small repetable loops to test the pid, acceleration, vibration capability and movement accuracy?

Maybe something similar to what I did already:

Speed/amplitude/wait time/amount of oscilations, at least on the heave.



Thanks

I just want to say that with version 1.7.2, my rig does not move at all.
I went back to version 1.6.8 and all is fine.
I used the 1.6.8 configuration file to update 1.7.2.
I see the pose slider moving with simtools forces. I see the graphics moving and I see the 3D model move.
The rig do not move.

In the 3D model, there was sway in roll and surge in pitch, even though they were not checked. I checked them and unchecked them. The sway and surge were now acting normally.

Hmm, watch out for feature creep, it can be a killer. Seen this happen with the AMC.

Sorry,
can't take a look today.
But it's strange, because I didn't touch on the serial output...

Is this how you want to use the scale factor?

same pose, different arm angle???

the scaling factor should concern the real model and not the 3d one. Therefore it should not touch the kinematic but bit output only. Am I right?

That's just a visualization "problem" .
Different scale, different angle.
I'm on the phone, but I will explain it better when I can.
Hate phones for posting...

Sure, It’s just a geometrical nonsens. Il you look for consistency you may want to correct it.

So what do you Want?
Cosistency between preview angle and real angle
Or Cosistency between platform positions
Because to obtain same proportions in one, makes the other one wrong.
That's no problem for linear, but you see it in rotational.
Or am I loosing something here?
Maybe remove scale. That way, there's no problem and it's one less calculation....

Scaling may not modify the geometry of your 3D model. It has to scale the bit output only.

What I want is the ability to use the scale factor in order to use my 360 sensors and than see on the 3D model exactly what I see in the reality.

That’s what I call consistency.

I said it’s tricky... a bit

Scaling is scaling kinematic is kinematic.

You may want to find a way how to split those