Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

Hello,

I disagree. Simply compare the output of KCAM running on windows to
an older version of TurboCNC, or CNCpro.

Then look at master5 vs mach1 versus mach3

You will not doubt discover that the demands of RELIABLY running
multi axis vectored CNC moves requires far better pulse trains than
you think.

There is a HUGE difference between the programs listed above when
run on the same computer, running the SAME hardware. And I'm not
talking about look and feel here, ONLY pulse train purity and even-
ness.

Ballendo

P.S. the saddest thing IMO is that it's not the computer
architecture that's killing us; rather the OS induced "protections"
aimed at the office products marketplace.
These products do not have the same demands as multi-axis CNC. Even
a color printer, which includes a fairly sophisticated motion
control system, is nowhere near the requirements of CNC.

From the outside, it looks "easy". Those who have tried find rather
quickly the true meaning of the phrase, the devil IS in the details!

Since 1989 I've been watching--and helping--person after person go
after the goal of a pc-based cnc control program. nearly all serious
efforts are successful to some degree. But that degree varies
widely, and many stop(give up) IMO FAR short of true cnc capability.
(G0,G1,G2,G3,G4) can theoretically do anything you need to do. But
there's FAR more to "real" cnc)


--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, Codesuidae <codesuidae@...>
wrote:

>
> Mariss Freimanis wrote:
> >> ballendo wrote:
> >>
> >> What we truly need is a usb EQUIVALENT of the parallel port.
> >>
> >
> > That's just not possible for CNC programs that output step and
> > direction signals from a parallel port. Step pulses have timing

in

> > the microsecond range.
>
> You are of course presuming that microsecond precision is

required.

> There are plenty of motion control tasks that could be performed

using

> less precise pulse timing. The availability of a cheap, bit-

bangable

> USB parallel port would enable control of such tasks from a wider

range

> of hardware. It doesn't take much imagination to see a variety of
> possible configurations and applications for such a device. I

suspect

> that it's probably more 'neat' than 'useful' though.
>
> Applications that require higher performance (of the sort for

which one

> might be inclined to use a Geckodrive) probably wouldn't be driven

from

> such a device and likely would justify spending a bit more to get

better

> hardware.
>
> Dave K
>