Tool Offset Parameters #5401-5409

[ToddZuercher]

Here are the steps I follow to reproduce the issue:

1. Install Linuxcnc
2. Open any Linuxcnc configuration.
3. Load a tool offset using G43Hn, where "n" is not equal to the loaded tool number.

This is what I expected to happen:

I expected the values displayed by parameter #5401-5409 to equal the values saved in the tool table for "n".

This is what happened instead:

What happened is that the values displayed for parameters #5401-5409 were either all zero if no tool is loaded, or equal to the values saved for the current loaded tool number.

If the developers feel the current behavior is correct, I would like to make this a request to add either a new set of number parameters or global named parameters that will display the current "applied" tool offset values, inducing any additional tool offsets from G43.2.

It worked properly before this:

I do not know if this has ever worked correctly, but it behaves as described above in 2.5, 2.9, and 2.10(Master).

Information about my hardware and software:

I have checked this behavior on multiple systems and distributions, including virtual machine simulation.

[andypugh]

I think that this seems wrong, the behaviour should be as-documented.
http://linuxcnc.org/docs/stable/html/gcode/overview.html#sec:overview-parameters
And I read "Tool offsets" as the applied offset, not the tool table entry.

[petterreinholdtsen]

[Andy Pugh]

I think that this seems wrong, the behaviour should be as-documented. http://linuxcnc.org/docs/stable/html/gcode/overview.html#sec:overview-parameters And I read "Tool offsets" as the applied offset, not the tool table entry.

Is there some way to rephrase the documentation to make it clearer? Todd, perhaps you have a proposed phrase that would make it clear to you what the intended behaviour is?

…

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen

[ToddZuercher]

I agree with Andy, I feel the current behavior seems wrong.

While it would be simple to change the documentation reflect the current behavior. Just make it say: "#5401-5409 displays the tool offsets stored for the loaded tool# (not the tool offset applied.)" but that doesn't make it any more useful.

Yes, 90% of the time the stored tool offset for the loaded tool would probably be the same as the applied tool offset, but this still leaves no simple way to parse what the actual applied tool offset is for situations when they are not the same, which I would think would be much more useful in practice.