Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] High level gcode scripting?

It shouldn't be too difficult to write some python functions
which would implement something like MoveTo(x, y, z), CutTo(x, y, z),
CWCircleTo(x, y, z, radius), etc. and write the appropriate
GCODE. You could then layer on top of this any higher level
objects you need. Reading in DFX files would probably be a more
difficult task.

Also there a person named Ron Ginger who has always expressed
an interest in coming up with a "conversational programming
language" for driving a CNC machine. Although this is not what
I would call a scripting language you might want to take a look
at it. Ron's website is <http://plsntcov.8m.com/>. I'm pretty
sure that Ron is a member of this group so he might chime in on
his own.

Drew

Codesuidae wrote:

> R Rogers wrote:
>
>
>>>codeSuidae <codesuidae@...> wrote:
>>>Greetings,
>>>
>>>Last night I was writing some gcode to cut pips on the faces of some
>>>dice, and as a computer programmer I was quite frustrated by the very
>>>restrictive nature of gcode. I found myself wanting to write a script
>>>language with a rich command structure that would be preprocessed into
>>>gcode.
>>>
>>>I've investigated the possibility of writing such a thing, and it looks
>>>quite simple, so I'm guessing someone has already done it. So my
>>>question is: where is it?
>>>
>>
>>Interesting concept if I understand it correctly. Although, a good CAD/CAM program makes very short work of most Gcode generation. The task you are describing as far as programming is concerned would be literrally a few minutes of keyboard time with.
>>
>
> Unfortunately a good CAD/CAM program tends to be expensive and as a
> hobbiest I don't want to sink more money into expensive tools that won't
> be generating income.
>
> Besides that it would be useful for doing tasks that vary slightly from
> run to run. For example, someone recently posted a small utility
> program to engrave lines in a ruler. Something like that would be a
> good script task. The script can pop up a small input with variables
> for length, resolution, width and etc, then generate the gcode
> automaticly without requiring any CAD/CAM work at all
>
> The particular task I was doing was easily done in gcode with a few
> subroutines and M00's and a few variables, but I just don't feel that
> there is any advantage to coding a hand-coded script in gcode as opposed
> to something more powerful. For those time when I don't want to use a
> full CAD/CAM solution, I don't want to step backwards too many decades.
>
> I guess I just like the idea of a free, light-weight tool to
> programatically generate the tool paths. I do have another motive too,
> which is that my 10yo son, who is of course absolutely facinated by the
> mill, would be able to learn some programming tools without using an
> arcane language like gcode. The tool would have the ability to process
> and include SVG files as well, so CAD drawings could be included as part
> of the script.
>
>
>>I'm just finishing up some UHMW blocks with slots radii running in two directions, very complex 3D surface. (auto door flocking or weatherstrip installation fixture). Bobcad handled it just fine, didn't take too long. Impossible to code by hand. One program had more that 6000 lines of code. Find a good Cad/Cam package.
>>
>
> I considered using a CAD/CAM combo, but it seemed pretty silly to have
> to model a bunch of holes in CAD, pull it into a CAM program then
> process it, figure out how to make it pause so I can rotate the die in
> the jig, and etc for a task that consists of nothing more than drilling
> holes in 6 combinations of 7 locations. If I had some decent
> programming tools it would be a very short script. Even in gcode its
> short, but much harder to do (very limited control structures, no data
> structures, no IDE assistance, arcane naming, etc).
>
> One of my other projects is a spoon. Obviously I'm modeling this in a
> CAD program (well, Blender anyway, which makes a tolerable modeling
> program for fantastic price) and using something (probably MeshCAM) to
> convert it. As an aside, I'm having very good luck using Blender as a
> modeling program. Its not suitable for things that need to be very
> precise, but for more artistic endevors, its really good.
>
> thanks for the input,
> cs
>