Re: What do we want?

So far, we seem to agree to agree that the machine controller should be free standing from the CAD. It could always be multitasking as
you said but why bother?

First, computers are basically very cheap today. Mess up one fancy work piece and the second computer could have been paid for.

Second, but even more to the point- I can not visualize myself standing next to a milling machine designing a 3-D part of any
significance. Real design and verification takes a long time and I expect it will be done in an office environment.

EMC sounds like the prime candidate for the machine control and hopefully efforts can be directed to improving it in that direction.

What other choices are there, both commercial and free, that will do machine control and accept G-code?

What commercial and free programs will combine CAD and G-code generation?

Any suggestions for converting programs?

Any suggestions for plugins in AutoCad?

It seems to me that there should be a need for all three: CAD-Converter-CNC. Different persons have different applications and for the
ones that are in a production environment, the CAD is always already done and they would always "convert" and then send it to the
machine.

I am not familiar with Ron Ginger's program but it sounds like you are proposing it as a basis for a "converter". Is that correct?
Bertho Boman
============================

> Jon Anderson <janders@...> wrote:
>
> I would have to agree with George's thoughts on the subject.
> Heck, Linux is multitasking, right? I don't see it as a big deal to run
> a CAD/CAM program in another window. I'm not a programmer, so might be
> concerned about nothing, but I'd rather not even take a chance on
> compromising the reliability of EMC.
>
> Now, if what George proposes can be hooked into EMC at a later date,
> great. But I really feel that motion control should be dealt with by a
> dedicated program, everything else associated with CAD/CAM/programming
> should be integrated into one or more external programs.
> I like the interface of Ron Ginger's AcuRite clone. Expand the canned
> routines, add G-code output, DXF and DWG import, and it's a killer app.
>
> BTW, that's not to say that I don't think EMC wouldn't benefit by adding
> a conversational option, but that's a lot different that integrating a
> CAD program. ( I think )
>
> Jon
>
> George Potter wrote:
> >
> > From: George Potter <gpotter@...>
> >
> > Hi Bertho (and list),
> >
> > I suspect that Arne is pushing us towards (will settle for) a drawing package,
> > gcode converter (if required) and emc (or fill in the blank _______) on a
> > common operating platform, and probably open source.
> >
> > My own preferences would be to have a 3d (capable) drawing package that
> > would directly output gcode (and support printers, dxf file output, etc.), be able
> > to accept manual input (mouse, keyboard etc.) read dxf, gcode, possibly
> > autocad dwg files (see OpenDWG Alliance) and then be able to send the gcode
> > directly to EMC (or simulation program, hand optimize if desired, etc.), the only
> > limitations (physically) being how big is your CNC device.
> >
> > I believe that we can get a better job of "optimized" the gcode, if it is directly output
> > from the drawing program, than using a program to convert dxf (or format of your
> > choice) to gcode. When I used to use DOS based AutoCAD, it did a much better
> > job of running my plotter (when optimization was selected) than I've ever seen my
> > windows version run my plotter .... I believe that we can include in the drawing
> > files cutter geometry, etc. that will enable the drawing package to produce well
> > organized gcode.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to interfere with the ongoing development of EMC, as it
> > appears to be progressing towards a very capable machine operating program,
> > but I do believe energy put towards a object entry program (drawing program)
> > that will give us good data to drive EMC is well worth the effort.
> >
> > Regards,
> > George Potter
> > Placerville, California
>