Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Indexer LPT

ccs@... wrote:

> It *IS* proprietary code, which is precisely the problem some of us
> were talking about - a user cannot modify it themselves to do
> something straightforward and logical like use a common 24 bit IO chip
> instead of multiple parallel ports.

Ok, So I understand a bit more. You would like to, say, use a different
textual "word" than "move", for indicating a Rapid move, And you dislike the
3 port usage.

Suddenly I see the desire to use an additional chip and this chip obviously
needs to have a circuit board and a bunch of additional work or components to
even operate. Then it needs a place to reside and connectors,terminals.....

Parallel ports probably can be had for under 5 bucks each with a little
internet search. Sounds like a lot of work just to get to one port. I'll
spend the $15. ( I was told there is no LAW against being in debt :-) )

I could be way off base because I do not know that much, But 3 ports, is
straight forward. (even on a atx formfactor with one PCI, you can get a dual
parallel port card and use the on board)

> Regardless of this, it may be usefull for many people, although I
> would personally hesitate to invest time and money building a machine
> or application program around something where I am dependent on a
> single source for support and improvement - especially given the
> alternatives that now exist.

This probably comes down to the split between the true hobbiest machinist and
the love of development and fiddling with the concepts. Both are hobbies, But
as Art and Mariss's comments attest to, really good continuous motion is no
cakewalk. I wonder how long it would take to develop a Indexer duplicate ? (
I am told that Larkens (dos) motion is very close to indexer - is IT a knock
off ? )

> If the interface it provides to higher level software is really good
> and popular, it might be worth writing an open source workalike which
> could be furhter improved by its users - but most of the people with
> the necessary skills seem to be working on either EMC or their own at
> least semi-proprietary windows package.

I guess I could understand this better if I messed with EMC. It seems I can
order up a "move" with any type of language I want, to any feasable unused
"pin" connection I want under EMC. Or, is it just another program with its
own "proprietarism" ?? I don't know... With all the fiddling I've seen
mentioned to make it run I am not sure it would be worth it to me, and I also
hear of unfinished areas in it as well.

Right now, I draw, create toolpaths, load G-code and the Cut Stuff. On top of
that, I look forward to cutting even better in the future as all of these
things get more refined. What more could I want ?

The market sure is changing.

Chris L