My first experience with NC/CNC was in 1978 on a 1958 Cleereman VMC with a GE Mark Century 100 control. That makes the technology over 61 years old. The control enclosure sitting beside the machine was 6 X 6 X 5 feet. The cooling unit was a LARGE household AC window unit. There were 100's of 4 X 6 inch PCB's (with large components) stuck in racks of slots. The machine looked like a current turret punch press with a large diameter disk carrying the tools. The quill retracted up and out of the disk to deposit the tool in three spring loaded balls to hold the tool. The disk would rotate the next tool under the quill for the quill to pick up on its way back down toward the work. The disk was unidirectional, there were no tool length offsets (each tool had to be length adjusted to match the programmed length) and there were thumb wheels to adjust the workpiece offset values (only 1 set of WPC registers). Progress has been slow and steady since 1958 but we are getting there.
I remember the first vestiges of IGES in the early 80's and STEP somewhere around 1990. Neither of these works trouble free. STEP-NC has been in development since the middle 90's with the goal of automatic tool path generation - not working yet. All of this with the ultimate goal of removing the human from the production process. In 1980 NC programmers were predicted to be unnecessary by 1990. The goal has not quite been reached yet. The task of printing an image on a piece of paper is very much simpler than machining a part. The current cutting technology (mills and drills) has progressed very little from the early 1900's. A current printer doesn't use a pencil or a pen to print a symbol on a piece of paper. 3D printing is something like a current printer but the result has some disadvantages compared to machining. If you want to print something on a piece of paper you can generate the symbol you want to print and then purchase the already assembled and programmed device to do the printing for you. You can do something like that in the machining world by contracting with a turnkey process provider. It just takes money (sometimes lots of it). When your project is finished and you need to change the process you can contract again to have a new process provided. When you want to print another symbol you are still using the same process (printing). When you want to manufacture another part you may or may not be using the same process. I don't see much to compare between printing and machining. The goal of LinuxCNC is not the production of parts. The goal of LinuxCNC is to facilitate the use of assets - hopefully in a very cheap but quality fashion. The cheap and quality is totally up to the person doing the integration. There is a web server called rockhopper that will give you something of what you want. One of the developers attended a LinucCNC meeting to show the application. It looked very slick and well done. It didn't match my goals with LinuxCNC so I didn't pursue it further. It wrote a kinematics module to give my machine geometry compensation and 5 axis tool length offsets. The machine became THE most accurate machine in the shop. It was an OLD worn out 5 axis machine. The ram (Y axis) weighed 30,000 lbs. It was not very fast but it was very flexible and would make good parts. I have the calculations developed to give my machine 5 axis tool diameter compensation. I just don't have the machine to implement it on. My goal was to make the machine run well. If the goal is making parts then there are several machine makers to purchase from just as there are choices of printer manufacturers to choose from. My memory of MachineKit is that Michael Haberler wanted to use LinuxCNC as a starting point to develop an everything control. I like that idea but I didn't follow it closely as I had other fish to fry (life gets in the way). It seems as if quite a bit of progress was made and then alas 'life gets in the way' and MH wasn't able to finish to the level originally intended. Very understandable and acceptable. All progress is good progress and gives someone else a higher base to build upon. HTH Just Sayin Stuart On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:07 PM Sam Sokolik <samco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm.. so the realtime patches being integrated into Linux kernel is > worthless old technology? They are waisting their time? (This is > unrelated to LinuxCNC) > > Currently LinuxCNC is being added to debian testing. It will soon be part > of the debian repository. > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 12:54 PM Chris Albertson <albertson.ch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The problem that is limiting LCNC's wider use is that it is a very old > > design. It is definitely not what anyone would design today. And it is > > not what moderned users expect or want. Documentation i=will not change > > what it is. > > > > Today, if this were being built again from scratch it would > > > > Run on any computer and not require some special real-time version of > > Linux. The user interface would be written in some portable way so it > > could be accessed even on a iPad or Andriod tablet or from macOS or > > Windows. This is possible. I proved it to myself just a few days > > ago. I have a 12 DOF robot here that is being driven by a Raspberry Pi > > and the user interface is web-based or X11 based and in theory, should > work > > on other platforms. > > > > Should not need a real-time OS on the computer. The real-time stuff (al > > of it) goes in hardware, Leaving only not-t=real-time tasks to the > > PC/Mac/iPhone > > > > It would configure 100% with no need to edit a single file by hand. > > > > It would have a conversational system so that a user could do simple > things > > with no need to write g-code. > > > > People care less about if it is free then if it acts like the above. > > > > What I would do is design some kind of real-time module. Perhaps that > > would be made of Mesa cards with different firmware or of > microcontrollers > > like "Teensy" and each of these could handle some number of axies. Maybe > > four. Then you use multiple of these to drive a larger machine of a > > robot. > > > > The 1980's was 40 years ago. Yes it really has been that long. LCNC is > > using 1980s software technology and people today are expecting the 21st > > century and mostly getting what they expect. Think of a basic 3D > > printer. It is no different from a milling machine just mechanically > > lighter weight. The whole thing, g_code interpreter and all is a cheap > > package with a self-contained controller One does not need to hunt > > dumpsters for antique desktop PCs and then install specialist OSes on > > them. The controller is built-in and pre-programmed. > > > > That said. I use LCNC because it does what I want and uses the 40 years > > old (maybe 50 years old now) technology I'm familiar with. Yes it is > that > > Old. I was a computer science student back when this wascutting edge and > > I'm retired now. > > > > Big goals for any new system should be > > 1) cross platform, especially mobile device friendly > > 2) zero file editing (zero, not just a small number) > > 3) modular, you can swap out parts and add parts as requirements change. > > 4) today we have "The Cloud" It could live at Amazon or in your own > shop. > > Some prefer to let a big company manage things, others like to buy their > > own equipment is mess with it themselves. Either way should work. > But a > > modern CNC system would run any number of mills and lathes and laser > > cutters and have any number of user interface screens and pendants. Jobs > > are moved and assigned to available shop equipment as needed. The cloud > > (local or remote, acts as a kind of NxM switch with storage and > computation > > while the local controller talks to motors. Today, I expect "job > > persistence" as I move between screens that are on my Phone or in the > > office of the shop. The cloud connects running processes that are on a > > milling machine with the design files and operator screens while the > > microsecond-level real-time jobs are handled by any number of little > > controllers. TodayI'd add cameras to the system too. I decent model > is > > "Octoprint". I can control or monitor prints from any screen. Any > > screen in the building or in my pocket could control any screen with no > > handoff required. Just sign-on and your work is there. > > > > The problem is that all of the above would take many man-years of > > development and there is no motivation to work on this for free. There > > needs to be some kind of business model. Some conly has to design they > > will develop this andthen make a living by consulting and hosts cloud > > processes. > > > > But without an changes LCNC will be using 60 year old tech inanother 10 > > years, then 70 and so on. It is already a non-starter in the eyes of > many > > people. it will just get more and more that way. > > > > The market for this is huge. Some one could make millions but the up > front > > effort and the existing big players will prevent that. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:46 AM Jérémie Tarot <silopo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Le jeu. 23 déc. 2021 à 20:05, John Dammeyer <jo...@autoartisans.com> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > But I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea in the new year to develop a > > > > build thread that takes a beginner through conversion of a mill to > LCNC > > > so > > > > it appears to be turnkey like the perhaps the ACORN CNC approach. > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > While working on docs translations migration and thinking about future > > > documentation work, "my" idea along this line would be to > > develop/document > > > a set of "reference implementations" to be used as plug and play > recipes > > or > > > basis for adaptation. > > > > > > These would cover all the usual suspects of DIY CNC projects like > router, > > > laser, plasma, mill, lathe builds/conversion/retrofits. > > > These docs may provide infos for the size sensitive components for the > > > reader to adapt. > > > > > > Another (complementary) approach would be to add to the docs a library > of > > > well crafted howtos about the setup of the various subsystems like > > motion, > > > spindle/torch, coolant, limits, e-stop... Some kind of decision tree > > could > > > be provided to lead the implementor who'd find the appropriate support > > doc > > > for each choice he'd make. > > > > > > For those of us that like to tinker with machines anyway, LinuxCNC is > > > already just great... For the rest of the world that'd better have a > > > machine that they can use to make stuff, we need to provide setups that > > > "just work" in a way or another. > > > > > > Willing to work on this after docs migration and french translation is > > > done. I'm all in to bring LinuxCNC goodness to the masses without > putting > > > the burden on the devs who I'd rather have working on fancier things > for > > > the future... > > > > > > As I may be unable to build an actual machine for the foreseable > future. > > I > > > plan to start building docs using vismach, then move to tabletop/lab > > setups > > > with small real components, etc... > > > > > > All these reference docs could have a category and a dedicated thread > in > > > the forum to hold discussions, requests and criticisms. > > > > > > TY > > > Jérémie > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Emc-users mailing list > > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Chris Albertson > > Redondo Beach, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emc-users mailing list > > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > -- Addressee is the intended audience. If you are not the addressee then my consent is not given for you to read this email furthermore it is my wish you would close this without saving or reading, and cease and desist from saving or opening my private correspondence. Thank you for honoring my wish. _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
