Re: G-code---for the new millenium

Guy,

As others have mentioned, your dream already exists. APT, for
Automatically Programmed Tool, is nearly exactly as you describe.

The reason many have not heard of it, may ALSO be the reason you
should pursue your idea. APT was the "workstation" or "supercomputer"
version of machine control in its' time. But, it is STILL used by
high dollar tools and projects, including military and government
jobs. ARCTN, LNETO, TANTO, are three of its "mnemonics". It is VERY
MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN GCODE!

So here's what happened: If you wanted to control a machine a few
decades ago, you had the choice of using APT, but you probably
ccouldn't afford the software. OR the computer required to run it, so
you "settled for" it's "ugly kid sister", G code. As more people were
forced by the "then" state of technology to use gcode, IT became the
De facto standard for machine control. The Govt- sponsored "nerds"
and "suits" still used APT, and scoffed at the g-code wannabes...

Now here's where you ARE: APT is easily run by common desktop
machines today. There are shareware packages available. It is more
powerful, and more intuitive, than gcode. All you have to do is learn
it and "evangelise" its virtues. This may be easier than trying
to "invent" a new code, tho' shopbot has done so, and IMO, done a
pretty good job of it. At least with APT you have some good "poster
boys". SR-71 Blackbird, anyone? APT.

For those in CAD, Catia is to Acad12, as APT is to Gcode.

Hope this helps,

Ballendo

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Guy Sirois" <guys@w...> 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