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

Hugh,

I'm not aware of a separate CL language. CL is the output of APT, as
far as I know.

Yes, by moving the post process to the controller, you would be
changing what you looked at, AT the control. To something many would
consider more "man-readable" than gcode.

A program like APT that supports CL, could work with a CAM pkg's
gcode post for your machine to allow you to do as you have suggested.

Ballendo

P.S. The benefit is that the flavors of gcode disappear when the
control performs the post from APT output to motor control. As you
say, there is a std for the CL (APT output). Even better if the CL is
not seen. Then you just converse, APT-like, and send it to the
control. CAD/CAM pkg's would "spit out" APT statements.

The control would now be doing the "lions share" of the work. As the
inevitablemarch of technology continues, this should not be a
problem. This whole thing would be merely re-aligning the work load
between human, CAD, CAM, and machine.

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Hugh Currin <currinh@O...> wrote:
> ballendo:
>
> Isn't there a newer intermediate language like APT? One that sits
between the
> CAM package and the post processor. I think it's called CL (Cutter
Location)
> and is an IEEE standard. I understand it's an outgrowth of APT but
my
> learning here is minimal.
>
> If this is accurate one would just be moving the post processor
from the CAM
> package to the controller.
>
> I wonder if code can be written in this intermediate language (CL)
and
> imported to a CAM package to use that packages post processors?
>
> Hugh Currin
> Klamath Falls, OR
>
> On Friday 01 March 2002 01:06 am, you wrote:
> >
> > APT is designed to be used with post-processors to "port" it to
the
> > various machines. But what if the "post processor" became PART of
the
> > CONTROL? Instead of part of the CAD/CAM, where it has been
> > traditionally? A paradigm shift to be sure, but one whose time is
> > possible, at least technically. This is what got me excited about
> > your quest, and prompted my comments about APT in the first place.
> > (Others had already mentioned it)