On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 01:07 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Ken > > Today manufacturing ? machining moves into specialize targeted market. > There are big size manufacturing company that can produce part that > cost more than that middle size brand new cnc mill! > > Some NC program if print out in letter size 10, will be 200 pages plus > long with use canned cycles! > Because program is so big -200 pages it is impossible manually alter > the code. To change something need use Catia and to check if > everything ok need use another software. > > It is super big risk to let machinist to change any parameters in > controller. I am sure that it is unique situation and that will bring > unique solution. > CAD /CAM become less expensive ? $15 000 for all 5 axis milling and > parts become more complex and expensive. So PC that runs CAD/CAM > becomes extension of machine controller. > From this perspective codes that I mentioned can be good foundation > in generation of universal G codes. I am interesting in specific and > targeted criticism of my proposal > > Thank you, > Aram
I am trying to understand the gist of what you saying, so I will try to restate it. Problem: Most CNC produced parts are so complex that the g-code that produces them, becomes too complex for manual editing or validating. Solution one: Use additional software to do the editing and validation. Problem with solution one: Must manually use additional software. Solution two: Merge CAD/CAM with CNC controller. Problem with solution two: CAD/CAM g-code won't match g-code for various CNC machines, hence the need for universal g-codes. Solution to the problem with Solution two: Create universal g-codes. My thoughts on: The Problem: I agree that g-code files are becoming complex to the point of being unmanageable and will get worse. Solution one: This seems reasonable. Just as C came about due to the increase in assembly code complexity, and C++ from C, and so on. Problem with solution one: Here is were it gets interesting and I have little CNC experience in this. I think you are indicating that CNC operators are having problems with manually using g-code and would also have problems with manually using a g-code validator/editor or using the software that created the g-code to begin with. In the shop I briefly worked in, that is what the machinists did. They would get a work order with the part's file name, bring up the part in CAD/CAM and review the drawing and any revision notes. Then they would use the original code as-is, or invoke the CAM procedure and send the g-code to their machine. The operators that could do both CAD/CAM and machining got to do the more interesting parts. Occasionally, small parts of the g-code would have to be tweaked. The biggest problem usually was in finding were in the code to look, which may be were the real problem lays(sp? gr?). I found, if the part's original g-code was well commented, it was much easier to locate the relevant code. Maybe, finding a way to automate the commenting of code would be of value. I guess canned code helps here to. There is a divergence here in that, you suggest a simplified g-code, which would need more commenting to decipher, and I am thinking more complex canned code might be better because it tends to be more self-indicating. Solution two: When I first used EMC I used tkEMC and became attached to its simple interface. I then started using AXIS and found the integrated backplot window to be valuable. It provides some of the functionality of a CAD program in validating code, especially by successively clicking through the code. From your conversation. it suggests that it would be nice to be able to edit or place features and way-points on the backplot and have an EMC plug-in create the appropriate machine commands in either g-code or NML. Problem with solution two: I don't think you will ever see universal g-code beyond G0, G1 and a handful more. There is no incentive, for the powers that could influence such a thing, to pursue it. It would be interesting to figure out who has how much power in the industry and how it could be influenced. EMC on the surface, seems like a bunch of guys (and gals?) on a mailing list playing with machines and computers, but I wonder, how many, if any, high power lurkers are out there gleaning nuggets of insight from this activity. I remember when the idea of a personal computer was a ridiculous idea. Solution to the problem with Solution two: See - "My thoughts on: / Problem with solution two:" above. I think that since there is no one major player in the CNC industry, that for the foreseeable future, standards will remain fragmented and redundant. Evolutionary solutions will come about through converters, filters and plug-ins. I do beleive it would be valuable to merge at least some if not most CAD/CAM functionality into the CNC machine controller. Maybe g-code could go away and the common denominator between machines from different manufacturers would be one, or a collection of, drawing formats. --- Caution: Side rant ahead --- I think the issues you are dealing with are political rather than technical. If you use PC operating systems as an example, it would be nice for a computer user to need to learn either one operating system or have all operating systems be very similar in how they are used. When the PC was new, there were nearly as many operating systems as there were manufacturers. As a result of power shifts over time we have shifted towards a more universal (Microsoft) operating system. Because of the incompatibilities between operating systems, most people have had to make a choice and use only one platform, PC, Mac, Linux, etc. And the pressures on individuals to be compatible with other individuals has driven the market to a single operating system. Thank goodness, a small minority of Mac and Linux users (geeks) have figured how to be at least partially compatible with Microsoft. My thinking is that, in the beginning, the PC operating system consumer and operating system producers were pretty level in power. Microsoft was able to provide a product that satisfied the majority of the individual consumers, so it gained the majority of power among manufacturers. It then used that power to destroy its competitors, which gave it power over consumers. Fortunately, there is a feedback loop, in that Microsoft has lost interest in keeping its customers happy, so many people are looking for alternatives. More individuals with a common interest, I hope, will gain more power over a group of individuals commanded by a central authority (Bill Gates). I think that individuals that can provide things like the operating system compatibility can, help facilitate a shift in power, but unfortunately, they can't drive it. -- Kirk Wallace (Hardinge HNC lathe, California, USA http://www.wallacecompany.com/machine_shop/ ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
