Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Ref: PC to controller comunication protocols

OK, I've been lurking, but now I have to jump in with my
experience, too... :-) :-)

IMHO, floating point isn't required anywhere. I have a working
18F-based controller that does all the gcode calculations in fixed-point.
It's a lot less costly than floating point (code space is fairly
limited in these microcontrollers), and it still manages to maintain
full accuracy.

I say go for it! You could buy something, but you wouldn't learn
nearly as much as you would by building it.

Mike

Alan KM6VV wrote:

> Hi ?,
>
> Loading DXF files directly has been done before, but I prefer to let my
> CAD/CAM program do that work. Gcode works fine for me. I sure wouldn't
> skip it.
>
> I do like to have MDI functions in my controller, and mine has a
> "history" such that I can "line edit" and replay previously issued commands.
>
> Yes, 18F's should be up to the task, and FP is available. The "fast
> spin" to actually generate the steps shouldn't need FP.
>
> By all means, keep on with your project!
>
> Alan KM6VV
>
> mrclicit wrote:
>
>
>>Well, here's another.
>>I have built a windows app with a nice gui that allows loading dxf
>>output directly, displaying the toolpath, allowing a few simple
>>adjustments,such a mirroring and offsets, then launches it to a
>>microcontroller on my stepper driven 2 1/2 axis machine.
>>
>>I started going further, such as bresenham and ellipses, but then i
>>asked - "would anyone want such a system?" i have started working with
>>Inventor 2008, and realized the import of a full 3rd axis and the
>>ability to read whatever filetype it will export, and the whole project
>>continued to grow in my mind.
>>
>>Now i see so many on this list are working on similar projects, that I
>>am not sure if I'll continue. What i would appreciate knowing is if
>>anyone thinks the idea of skipping the g-code altogether might have
>>been a good idea.....It seems to me that textiles and garments are cut
>>everyday on commercially produced machines that do not rely on any
>>single standard - has anyone worked with OptiTex software, for example?
>>
>>As for microcontrollers, there's a number of pic 18's that will handle
>>all the line and curve calculations. It really shouldn't matter how
>>it's written - I've done much larger projects based on PIC 18's in
>>assembly, C, and basic....yes, basic - there are many ways to not need
>>to rely on floating point and to crunch a fair number of decimal places
>>even in picbasic.
>>
>>So, should I continue with my project? What is the collective view?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>