re:re:Re: gcode comments

Brian,

It is easy to use an extreme example to convince us something do-able is not "worth" doing or even "possible".

I'm not talking about G303! And the Lathes vs. Mills is obvious and easy to solve. A set of common LATHE codes, and a set of common Mill codes...

From previous posts you'll see I agree with your statement that there needs to be flexibility built in. The use of Gxx.x (G38.2, for example) is becoming more common and allows 9 or 10 variations of a common theme. LOTS of new holes even in the 'under G100' arena!

This is no different than any other engineering project!

There was an initial "design brief"(the 274d standard). It was implemented "best way" by many different entities(engineers). The divergence created choices, and subsequently, the market(design team) chose to adopt some of the choices in a final way, and left others as "unsettled".

This is the state of things now. ALL I am saying is, "Let's STABILISE what parts we can!" To do this, we need to look at standard usages, and promote their usage in new implementations of the code. Again, standard engineering revision control!

The fact that there are 12 axis machines which will fall outside the scope of this "settling" does not make it a bad idea!

Hope THIS helps.

Ballendo

>"Conspiracy? Hell, we couldn't agree on lunch."

We don't have to agree. We have to document the agreement that ALREADY EXISTS! (THEN, we may be better able to convince the "nearly agreed" that they should also 'come on board'.)

>fer instance I work on a 12 axis lathe that uses codes like M303 >,G433 etc

<snip> you should always consider building some flexibility into it >IMO

>Brian