You're cool if you manage to implement such a map in a working fashion.
If you use relative positioning instead of absolute, you could give the map a much smaller memory footprint. Divide long lines moves into smaller ones in firmware before applying map.
Such a relative positioning map would only work by itself if there is a constant relation between motor rotation and hot end movement. In a polar printer or delta style printer you would need mappings between motor rotation and hot end movement, to accompany your relative positioning mapping, which would eat up some of the benefits of your idea. However, cartesian printers would be the ones with the least need for mapping/caching optimizations, so I guess motor rotation -> hot end movement mappings would be needed to make relative positioning mappings interesting and useful.
Anyways, if you limit yourself to cartesian 2d and have maximum movement length of 2 mm, you only need 2*2*70*70=19600 elements in your mapping array, where 70 is my number of steps per mm. Halving your number of steps per mm (for example by choosing 1/8 microstepping instead of 1/16) divides the size of your mapping array by 4.
I would be impressed if you managed to save in on processing time with this idea. But there's no hope for an idea that doesn't sound insane at the outset, or something like that ;-)
cheers
If you use relative positioning instead of absolute, you could give the map a much smaller memory footprint. Divide long lines moves into smaller ones in firmware before applying map.
Such a relative positioning map would only work by itself if there is a constant relation between motor rotation and hot end movement. In a polar printer or delta style printer you would need mappings between motor rotation and hot end movement, to accompany your relative positioning mapping, which would eat up some of the benefits of your idea. However, cartesian printers would be the ones with the least need for mapping/caching optimizations, so I guess motor rotation -> hot end movement mappings would be needed to make relative positioning mappings interesting and useful.
Anyways, if you limit yourself to cartesian 2d and have maximum movement length of 2 mm, you only need 2*2*70*70=19600 elements in your mapping array, where 70 is my number of steps per mm. Halving your number of steps per mm (for example by choosing 1/8 microstepping instead of 1/16) divides the size of your mapping array by 4.
I would be impressed if you managed to save in on processing time with this idea. But there's no hope for an idea that doesn't sound insane at the outset, or something like that ;-)
cheers