Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: the open source 'thing'

I am trying to understand really. Please don't think I am pushing you guys
into something. I have always heard this "open" thing and just never got it.
Sure, I understand the "wants" part. I want this thing added or that thing....
Actually, when Flashcut was in its early years I DID get a lot of things I
wanted. I can find documents that go back to numerous discussions about
Contouring, Letting me have normally open switches instead of closed for
limits. Also, putting the Output Lines control on-screen instead of driving
thru the menus. Or even the Plasma control that knows it needs to shut off the
Torch when I pause it or abandon the job. All these things were added to the
existing program. Good current customers did not have to pay for these new
features if they really needed them and these additions are only a few. In
that respect the cost of it is not that much.

So, in regards "open", that is why I wondered before, if this is a matter of
moving "buttons" around on the interface or the technique itself of
controlling the motors smoothly and correctly. Lets look a little closer....

I thought that was the whole point behind EMC. All freeware stuff, people
could do what they want, when they want and how they want. That sounds open to
me, yet, not everyone finds it to be the answer, or just enough have not taken
the plunge to find out how great it is. Or, maybe there are just as many
"difficult to fix" issues with it that it too, is not exactly a World class
control until someone takes time to make it work. I'm not sure which. I kind
of grab the idea that because quite a few, even in this group persue a Windows
control, that maybe EMC has some issues. Otherwise why really bother.

I realize that FlashCut is not open because of the unknown language sent to
the Box. Beyond that, we do not know what is programmed into the main chip.
I assume then, that neither would be CNCPro, Master5, KellyCam, or DesKams
product because it is a "canned" program. Unless of course, they give you the
ability to disassemble, modify, then recompile the program either freely or by
purchase. That is correct, Right? With the ability to re-compile you then
could make any change you would want to the program.

Now with Constant Contouring always turning up as a real tricky issue to get
to work flawlessly, Do you feel that recompiling any of the above would bring
it into that "sweet" spot of excellent Contouring ? Or, would we be saddled
with base code issues that would still, even after having full access to the
code, be limited in the contouring area ?
I am assuming the latter.

So, the matter of "changing" things, in order to make this all worth while,
really needs a "root" program that is an *awesome* program that works
flawlessly, Contours like crazy, has all the I/O anyone could ever want and
they GIVE you all of the source code so you can change it.

I'd like to think that when someone gets THAT program developed, one will not
need to change it ! Well, Tim Taylor "changes " things for no reason........
he undoubtedly would change the "everymans lathe", even though it does
everything anyone would want it to do.

The whole topic almost reveals that to date, a really, really good PC windows
*or* even Dos controller has not yet been made... otherwise everyone would
have a target project to find out how it works, copy it without ending up in
court, then give it away in a fashion that anyone can modify it. Not sure how
many are lining up for that project.

That is why I wondered about Indexer. I would have thought long ago that it
would have been a model for some of the fellows who like to develop the
software end or at the very least set up an Interface to run G-Code. 90,000
pulses per second on each axis X's 6 axis ?

I would like to hear some stories from Indexer Users, who can tell us what it
"can not" do for them other than Interface issues. I dragged out the manual
for the old version and counted almost 60 ASCII commands that can be sent to
it. I have heard of machines that have had there own interfaces that cut
optical lenses, and even a Doctor who after spending a lot of time using
controls that did not work finalized happily on Indexer making some kind of
human body parts or something.

So, your right. Maybe I just don't see the issues about just "changing" things
because I can. I could be too old for that. (Might be why my Astro Van does
not have that Big Block in it yet.)

The way I see it, we need a really good Windows Control. It has not been
introduced yet. When someone finally does go thru all the effort and expense,
I don't think they will give it away or let you modify it. If it is really
good, I'll just use it the way it was made.

Chris L


ccs@... wrote:

> Chris L,
>
> It seems you "don't get" the open source thing. That's okay - not
> everyone is bothered by having to accept that things they dislike are
> unchangeable, and in fact many things that are theoretically
> changeable about even open source packages are beyond the capabilities
> of most of their users to change - but the possiblity is always there
> if one wants to learn how or seek help from someone who already knows how.
>
> Let me try to construct an analogy.
>
> Suppose a company started offering an "everyman's lathe" which was
> reasonably priced and reasonably featured. We'd all want it, right?
> But there is a catch - almost all of the machine is a single casting.
> The screw and bearings inserted at the factory, and then end blocks
> are welded on. And it is all made of a material so hard that even
> carbide can't cut it (yet somehow the bed abrades at a normal rate ;-)
>
> You are free to machine any part you like with this machine (you can
> even use any cad package to design it, hire any operator you like, and
> swear at it in the language of your choice) as long as you do it in a
> way the manufacturer planned for. Because you can't change anything
> about the machine - you can't retrofit better screws, put a VFD on the
> motor, take off the chuck and switch to collets, fit a dro, or hang a
> stepper or servos on it for CNC.
>
> It's still a decent machine... and may get the job done quite well for
> many people who are content to work within its designed abilities... at
> least as long as the company that made it stays in business.
>
> Now look at my South Bend lathes... they have their limits, sure. But
> they are made out of nice stuff to drill mounting holes in (cast
> iron), they come with good manuals and diagrams, they are designed
> with the assumption that users will maintain them, and just about
> everything comes off by undoing bolts, and parts (both original and
> adaptations from other suppliers) are available 40-50 years after they
> were made. I could, if I wanted to badly enough, change anything
> about that machine (indeed, I keep thinking of making a native 5C
> headstock for the 9-incher, and I am converting both of them to CNC in
> a way that still permits manual operation) up to and including
> replacing the entire thing bit by bit.
>
> That is what open source means to me. It may not mean a thing to you,
> and that is fine.
>
> Chris Stratton
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Christopher C. Stratton
> Engineer, Instrument Maker, and Horn Player
> ccs@... 617 628 1062
> http://web.mit.edu/~stratton/www/brassbuild.html
>
> Addresses:
> FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
>
> Post messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com, wanliker@...
> Moderator: jmelson@... timg@... [Moderator]
> URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> bill,
> List Manager
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/