Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FR] Support SCARA machines with 2 fixed motors #607

Closed
ademenev opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

[FR] Support SCARA machines with 2 fixed motors #607

ademenev opened this issue Feb 1, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
request request

Comments

@ademenev
Copy link
Contributor

ademenev commented Feb 1, 2024

SCARA kinematics implies that the arm motor is located on the forearm, and rotating only the forearm motor does not change the angle between the arm and the forearm.

There is another way to implement a SCARA machine, pictured below.

1706825580043

In this type of machine, keeping constant angle between the arm and the forearm requires rotating both motors. Forward and inverse kinematics is not much more complex, but is different.

I intend to implement this time of kinematics, the only question is: what would be the best name for it?

@ademenev ademenev added the request request label Feb 1, 2024
@Paciente8159
Copy link
Owner

Awesome.
If it's the first of it's kind you can give any name you want. If not it would be preferable to follow existing naming conventions (like in GCode implementations) (using naming conventions used in other firmware like Marlin or LinuxCNC).
Let me know if any question arises.

@ademenev
Copy link
Contributor Author

ademenev commented Feb 1, 2024

It is not new, the idea is pretty simple and I guess it has been implemented independently by multiple people. In Marlin, it is known as MP SCARA (mostly printed SCARA).

Probably, it would be easier to make that not a separate kinematics, but just an additional config option

@Paciente8159
Copy link
Owner

Probably, it would be easier to make that not a separate kinematics, but just an additional config option

If that can be done over the existing SCARA kinematic then ok.
I'm not against having a completely separate kinematic if it improves readability or for customization/maintenance reasons.

@Paciente8159
Copy link
Owner

Implemented with #645

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
request request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants