Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Re[2]: axis naming conventions

ballendo@... wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thank you for some clarity.
> Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This whole thread started
> in response to Terrys' post re: A CAM system for EMC? And EMC is used
> by machinists? Who are "used to" certain names for the "parts" of
> their machine(s)?
>
> Maybe I'm alone on this, but it just seems better to "break down"
> barriers to communications between the "Designers" and the "Makers".
> Especially now that they are often one and the same! If you're going
> to design a product for a certain market, shouldn't the "conventions"
> of that market be addressed?
>
> I'm still talking axis names here.
>
> As Jeff points out, MANY CAD systems are used by people who have
> never seen a mill. So I guess the first thing to do is to decide who
> this S/W is for!?? Machinists? Designers? Or both? And whether
> to "pull" the machinists towards the CAD world? Or pull the designers
> toward the machinists' world. Most of the major CAD players are doing
> the LATTER.

OK, the whole reason this is important is that EMC (and many other
CNC control packages, both commercial-grade and hobby-grade)
use the many conventions in the G-code (RS-274D) specification
already. Many CAD/CAM and CAM products also use these conventions,
and they talk to each other pretty well.

If we want to supply a CAM program, or a CAD/CAM package, it
will be simplest to have it compatible with what EMC already understands.
It will also be of the most general use if it conforms to what other
CNC controls already understand.

CNC controls definitely have dialects and variants on how you do
free-form surfaces, canned cycles, 3 and more axis coordinated
motions, loops and subroutines, etc. That is enough variation, already,
on things that the RS-274D spec left totally unaddressed, or at least
didn't go into strict enough detail that anyone could follow it as a
guide. That is a shame, and a constant (and hellish) time waster
in any shop with several different controls on similar-type machines.

But, at least, the axis names and signs, general movement commands,
etc. ARE nailed down quite well by RS-274D, and we'd be making a big
mistake to diverge from them.

Jon