Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] G-code---for the new millenium

Personally, I think I would have a harder time using the sample you explain
because it is far too much like any other "code" language. (It's not whole words
so I consider it another "code")

I also think that, just like anyone who has been blessed with the job of
developing an internal part numbering scheme for a large mail order company, you
too, will suddenly run out of the "convenient" letters in your code and suddenly
be forced into using letters for commands that make no sense at all.

Possibly the one easiest change to help some remember would be a simple
interpreter that used something like the following just to replace the G0, G01:
RX 1.0 Y 1.0 Where "R" simply means "rapid" and FX in the same thought meaning
"feed". Some controls actually allow both the rapid and feed rates to be set in
the begining of the file, staying modal thruout the job. It just swaps rates
when it reads a G0 or G01.


Maybe you would like Indexers Code. Items like "move", "feed", "dwell" Etc, all
ascii typed in text as it is an underlying "motion control" application adapted
for CNC work. However, A typical arc command has the following information
in it: " arc_to_angle: >direction<, >steps to centerpoint<, >axis to move<,
steps to centerpoint, >angle<. That is a whole lot of text work for something a
typical G02 line relates.

I think with Indexers latest G-code interface, that at least some of the typical
ascii commands they used can be intermingled with the G-Code. I'm still waiting
to hear from anyone who has tried it.

I find the basics of the "G" language to be very easy to remember, and I can't
really think of an easier way than it is now, other than just pulling together
some of the minor loose ends from control to control. Seeing that one really
needs to have a Cam program to be productive anyhow and that most all are
configurable for output, I think I'd vote for it to stay the way it is.

Or, find a way for me to just "think" about the project and it runs
automatically while I watch TV ! That would be good.

Chris L

Guy Sirois wrote:

> I am thinking (dreaming) out loud here but here goes anyway.
>
> Like most people learning Gcode for the first time, I have some problems
> remembering the code number for each action.
> As there was recently a thread on "variations" of Gcode (I saw that in the
> archives) I was wondering if it would be feasible to give to our
> interpreting software, the ability to read text commands and/or Gcode.
>
> My main area of work is in electronics (not computers) and many systems are
> now controlled by microcontrollers. Their language is usually very intuitive
> with commands like
> LSL for Logical Shift Left
> CPI for Compare with Immediate
> SER for Set bits in Register
> CLR for Clear Register
> etc... you get the idea.
>
> I was thinking about implementing alternative text commands to Gcode that
> would be equally well interpreted by the software receiving it (machine
> controller). The commands would be 3 or 4 letter words with an intuitive
> meaning to them. It would not take longer to write the code manually, but
> would allow a listing that is much more "readable" by humans. It would also
> allow someone not quite familiar with code to quickly see the tool path in
> the file.
>
> For example, let's imagine...
> RAP for G00 Rapid positioning
> LIN for G01 Linear interpolation
> ACW for G02 Circular interpolation Clockwise (arcs)
> ACCW for G03 circular interpolation counter-clockwise
> CCCW for G13 Circle counter-clockwise
> XYP for G17 X-Y plane designation
> RADL for G41 cutter radius compensation to the left
> DRL for G83 hole drilling
> ABS for absolute programming mode
> FEED feed rate
> LOOP for loop the program
> DWL for dwell
> RPM for (what else) RPM
> END for end program
> etc...
>
> Shouldn't involve big software changes in the machine controller programs
> IMHO. If the line doesn't begin with a G## , then check the comparison table
> to find a matching command and process it as Gcode for the rest of the
> processing.
>
> Same for the Gcode generators, where there could be an option in the menu to
> select G-code output or T-code (for Text code) or whatever.
>
> The end result of this could be to render CNC code more attractive to
> everybody without any drawbacks (that I can see now). The important thing is
> to make the code intuitive. I do not mean this to be a replacement to Gcode,
> it is merely an alternative syntax.
>
> Once it has become a feature of the most popular programs we use, and people
> use it, it can only become more popular with time and, maybe, be part of the
> new "standard" for modern CNC code.
>
> When Gcode was invented during the fifties, the "computers" probably
> couldn't deal with text commands, so maybe that's the reason we are "stuck"
> with the numbers.
>
> Oh ! Time to wake-up.
> Was this a bad dream or not ?
>
> Guy Sirois
>
> Addresses:
> FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
>
> OFF Topic POSTS: General Machining
> http://www.metalworking.com/news_servers.html
> http://www.metalworking.com/news_servers.html
>
> 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 Mom
> List Owner
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/