re: gcode stds wasRe: re:taig Maxnc spindle
Posted by
ballendo@y...
on 2001-01-06 16:26:28 UTC
doug r wrote:
go their own way... But I think you've got this one backwards. G/E
Fanuc was "THE" WAY! The others (except Haas) went 'away' from them
and are now BACK!!! The volume of sales (especially in the US) led to
Fanuc becoming the "de-facto" standard. Fagor in Europe is/was in a
similar position, I think.
This is really quite similar to the "pc" wars. Several competitors
embark on bringing some new technology to the public. Some are
technically superior, others are bigger or better at business and/or
marketing. Still others are just "niche" players. As time goes on,
the "unseen hand" of the marketplace decides... The players react by
attempting to differentiate or accomodate. And usually, one or
two "primary" providers result. MS and Apple, in this case. Then, the
process repeats... Linux, anyone?
something which 'should' be the same, differently?!?
Like a G04 (pause) which used Q instead of P? Or milliseconds instead
of decimal seconds for length of pause?
Compensating for a machines' particular traits is not the same as
what I'm suggesting. The codes which CAN be standard SHOULD BE
standard-ly implemented! Certain differences will ALWAYS be with us.
And that's okay! But why should I have to pay my programmer to re-
post the same program so that we can(or we have to) run the "big job"
on two different mills (same part)??? When the differences are things
like the 'q' versus P above??? A pause is a pause!
I'm not saying we should stop innovation. I AM saying that it doesn't
need to be this hard! Or even more correctly, that as time goes on we
should be improving the situation, NOT making it worse by saying
things like, "I just deal with it". We all "just deal with it". But
we CAN do things, and make choices, so that we ALL "just deal with it
LESS!"
That's one of the reasons I'm active on this forum. And typing this
now :-)
The internet allows people who are "just dealing with it" to talk to
others doing the same. And allows a concensus to be heard from groups
who previously had no voice. And the Mfr's ARE listening... It's sort
of like planting trees, or having kids. The biggest part of the
result may happen after we are gone... Some will decide not to get
involved because of this. Others will jump in.
The REAL difference is that todays vast communication allows ideas to
become things MUCH faster than before. So it's as if the trees are
growing ten times faster, i.e., we don't have to wait 'til we're dead
to see results. :-)
Hope this helps.
Ballendo
>Taig routinely sells parts to potential competitors. Don't knowAs does Sherline... I just don't see Otto doing this (just my opinion)
>about this case, but they do sell quantiites of lathe headstocks,
>etc. to other manufacturers.
>From a control makers standpoint there reasons for moving away fromYes, we've previously discussed several economic reasons for MFR's to
>a "standard". I notice Fanuc controls are now available on
>Bridgeport, Haas(?), Fadal, and Cinncinati (sp) machines among
>others. In the past those guys had their own controls only. It
>sure didn't hurt Fanuc to go their own way.
go their own way... But I think you've got this one backwards. G/E
Fanuc was "THE" WAY! The others (except Haas) went 'away' from them
and are now BACK!!! The volume of sales (especially in the US) led to
Fanuc becoming the "de-facto" standard. Fagor in Europe is/was in a
similar position, I think.
This is really quite similar to the "pc" wars. Several competitors
embark on bringing some new technology to the public. Some are
technically superior, others are bigger or better at business and/or
marketing. Still others are just "niche" players. As time goes on,
the "unseen hand" of the marketplace decides... The players react by
attempting to differentiate or accomodate. And usually, one or
two "primary" providers result. MS and Apple, in this case. Then, the
process repeats... Linux, anyone?
>Personally, I don't see much of a problem with controls that aren'tSo you've never made a part wrong because the control interpreted
>standard Gcode-wise. You just deal with it. The machine's hardware
>is usually different enough in capacity, accuracy, hp, etc that you
>have to compensate for those factors anyway.
something which 'should' be the same, differently?!?
Like a G04 (pause) which used Q instead of P? Or milliseconds instead
of decimal seconds for length of pause?
Compensating for a machines' particular traits is not the same as
what I'm suggesting. The codes which CAN be standard SHOULD BE
standard-ly implemented! Certain differences will ALWAYS be with us.
And that's okay! But why should I have to pay my programmer to re-
post the same program so that we can(or we have to) run the "big job"
on two different mills (same part)??? When the differences are things
like the 'q' versus P above??? A pause is a pause!
I'm not saying we should stop innovation. I AM saying that it doesn't
need to be this hard! Or even more correctly, that as time goes on we
should be improving the situation, NOT making it worse by saying
things like, "I just deal with it". We all "just deal with it". But
we CAN do things, and make choices, so that we ALL "just deal with it
LESS!"
That's one of the reasons I'm active on this forum. And typing this
now :-)
The internet allows people who are "just dealing with it" to talk to
others doing the same. And allows a concensus to be heard from groups
who previously had no voice. And the Mfr's ARE listening... It's sort
of like planting trees, or having kids. The biggest part of the
result may happen after we are gone... Some will decide not to get
involved because of this. Others will jump in.
The REAL difference is that todays vast communication allows ideas to
become things MUCH faster than before. So it's as if the trees are
growing ten times faster, i.e., we don't have to wait 'til we're dead
to see results. :-)
Hope this helps.
Ballendo