actor framework with motion control

[jdebuhr]

I have a project where I need to control 3 linear actuators. 2 actuators work together and the 3rd gets an item that is picked by the first 2 but sort of runs on its own. my current system was done with a different architecture, I would like to move to Actor framework but not sure of the best way to implement.

essentally all the Lianear actuators will be 1D moves, due to the sequencing that has to happen. my actuators are X, Y and Z.. Z is mounted to Y and there is a grabbing mechanism on Z. Since I cannot get into too much detail here is how the unit will run:

Move Y to Pick

Move Z to Pick

Activate grabber ( using DAQmx) to grab item

Move Z to Transport

(while the above are moving if X is Avail move X to receive ASAP)

Move Y to Wait ( if x is not ready)

Move Y to Receive once X is in place

Release Grabber

Move Y and Z slightly

Move X to clear

Return Y and Z Home

I would guess each of the Moves should be a method in an actor. I was thinking X as one Actor and Combime Y and Z as another Actor since of the way that Y and Z are connected, but would I control/time everything at th parent level to these actors?

So, Move Y to pick, send message to parent, then Move Z to pick, send message to parent and etc?

I am just looking for the best ways to implement the actors and the sequence and the more I think about it I think each move will need to be its own method in the actor.

[Wart]

Are they all the same actuators?  You could write a generic actor called Actuator and implement almost everything in it, and then inherent for X,Y, and Z from that.  Making each actuator their own actor from that point should be pretty simple.

[drjdpowell]

This application doesn't strike me as one that particularly benefits from using "actors".  The advantage of a parallel process like an actor is that it can be "active" independently.  For example, a "PID actor" would be constantly monitoring its process and adjusting feedback.  But a simple actuator doesn't need to do anything or monitor anything outside of its simple "Move" action.  Does it need anything more than a simple subVI?  If you're using actors for other things, consider a single "Picker" actor that does everything, but having actuators as individual actors seem overkill.

-- James

[jdebuhr]

Thanks,

as for thr actuators, I need the X to be able to move in parallel with the Y and Z. The X can be doing other things at the same time as the Yand Z. This is just one piece of the overall puzzle, there will be other pieces added as time moves on.