Hi Mark,
I'll summarize your basic premise here that all machines are different.
That's true!
And MACH2/3/4 has a huge user base without ever needing a command line editor.
So if it can be done for Windows then certainly it can be done for LCNC.
Having said that I'm also not suggesting we do away with the underbelly of what
is LCNC. Please recall my original post in this subject. The ACORN based
system cannot run an old iron system with existing servo drives. It's likely
it can't even run a system with a STMBL drive that faults on low power supply
voltage which mine does because I have a soft start delay on mine so ENABLE
shows up before the Voltage is there. Doesn't look like it can even do
step/dir for the spindle (which MACH3 can). So there is a place for the 'raw'
LinuxCNC install and HAL/INI file model.
But that user I mentioned wasn't interested in learning a new OS and the ACORN
was a one stop shop for the Ethernet controlled step/dir/VFD/IO board and
windows CNC software. He went with Clearpath Servos so he wasn't adverse to
spending money. He could just as easily have installed LCNC 2.8.2 and the MESA
board with terminal strips and used the config screens in AXIS and I suspect
for less money. But the LinuxOS itself appeared to also scare him away so he
likely would never be a user.
I think everyone who likes using an editor for configuration and issuing
multiple commands with a command line interface has already been brought over
to the dark side so to speak. They aren't the market for expanding the LCNC
user base.
I've attached a screen shot of something I've been playing with. Took about an
hour to write using a modern GUI based software development tool; in this case
Lazarus Free Pascal. The TCanvas Property has all sorts of drawing tools so I
thought I'd take a quick look at the Axis source code. To see how easy it
would be to port over the Preview screen to Pascal.
I was immediately reminded of something I written many years ago by Nicholas
Wirth the author of Pascal. "Those who learn Fortran as their first language
are brain damaged for life". Rather harsh actually and taken out of context
appears elitist . OTOH, 4195 lines of essentially undocumented python code
does look like a lot of the Fortran code the Electrical Engineers were writing
in University while we in the Comp Sci. stream were writing in structured
languages Algol-68. And those were not for GUI type interfaces which add to
complexity.
For example:
if o.canon:
x = (o.canon.min_extents[0] + o.canon.max_extents[0])/2
y = (o.canon.min_extents[1] + o.canon.max_extents[1])/2
z = (o.canon.min_extents[2] + o.canon.max_extents[2])/2
o.set_centerpoint(x, y, z)
If you go searching for o.cannon you find:
o.canon = canon = AxisCanon(o, widgets.text, i, progress, arcdivision)
Search for AxisCAnon and we find the object definition:
class AxisCanon(GLCanon, StatMixin):
Now we're into the include side of things where the rs274 library is needed:
from rs274.interpret import StatMixin
from rs274.glcanon import GLCanon, GlCanonDraw
which takes us to here:
https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/blob/master/lib/python/rs274/glcanon.py
which is another 1886 lines of undocumented code.
The excuses that will be made for no documentation will be the same ones given
for command line operation of Linux and LCNC. It's much better than windows
or it's self documenting. You just have to learn a few commands and you can do
so much more than with windows........
I believe we need to step outside the box and ask ourselves this question. How
can we attract more people who just want simple CNC (maybe without limit
switches even), a VFD and encoder on the spindle and possibly coolant or a few
other outputs.
One really simple way is that the companies (or people) building the
intelligent CNC controls like the MESA change their web sites to have at least
one menu choice for "SimpleCNC".
I went here:
http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?LinuxCNC_Supported_Hardware
Eventually with more Google searching I ended up here:
http://store.mesanet.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=290&search=7i76e
That link to the page I think would be best right at the top of the MESA site.
And on that page should be a link to a page with a pictorial connection diagram
like:
https://www.centroidcnc.com/centroid_diy/acorn_cnc_controller.html
And a link to a version of LinuxCNC 2.8.2 (or latest) with a HAL/INI file
specifically set up for that hardware. Literally install OS from .iso and
there's a desktop ICON to run LCNC for that hardware.
But going back up to the LCNC supported hardware link it turns out there's
almost nothing available for LCNC Ethernet control other than the MESA boards.
So maybe that's also why MACH3/4 and the ACORN are so successful.
Anyway, something to think about for the new year.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark [mailto:wendt.m...@gmail.com]
> Sent: December-26-21 5:41 AM
> To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Choice of CNC conversions
>
> On 12/25/21 12:59 PM, John Dammeyer wrote
>
> > LinuxCNC is a GNU user space component until you add the Real Time side of
> > things to provide determinism which then makes it
> again a combination of GNU/Linux with a user space component that is LCNC
> with a variety of user interfaces.
> >
> > And my point of starting this discussion thread was to point out that the
> > LCNC that we work with could be on a lot more hobby
> systems if the user interface and installation was upgraded to
> _Never_ever_have_to_use_the_command_line_or_text_editors_to_handle_or_modify_installation
> or do a number of standard
> operations.
> Sure.� As long as you can guarantee that every single machine
> manufactured, designed, built in someones garage or basement will be
> identical to each and every other machine out there.
> > And before someone else brings it up I totally agree that entering G-Codes;
> > http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/gui/axis.html#_mdi
> > or working with G-Code programs requires a text editor. That�s true of any
> > proper CNC system at some level.
>
> A lot of us prefer to set up and maintain computing systems via the
> system's config files.� I've been around Unix and Linux long enough I
> prefer vi most of the time.� Other's prefer emacs.� Why even discuss a
> tool that comes standard with the OS?
>
>
> >
> > The best example I can think of is my new touch probe. It has a light. I
> > can use the jog/mpg method to move the axis and watch
> the LED in the probe come on and then set 0. Jog to the other side and touch
> off. Then use the calculator to determine the
> midpoint, jog to that and set zero position. Been doing that with my DRO-350
> for years other than it has a FCN button that
> automatically sets the zero for me when it reaches the second touch point and
> is electrically connected to the probe input on the
> DRO-350 hardware.
>
> John, I've been using a DRO-350 and a DRO-550 for years on my other
> machines in the shop that are not CNC.� Can't compare them though.� They
> are not motion controllers.� They're digital readout systems that have
> some nice mathematical capabilities.� Now you are talking about a touch
> off widget/program.� Someone had to write the code for that either for
> LCNC or any other motion controller and make it compatible with whatever
> controller it's being used on.
>
> > But with this screen
> > https://github.com/verser-git/probe_screen_v2
> > most of what is needed is done automatically. Unfortunately it still
> > requires editing the INI and HAL files and somethings don't
> automatically work correctly.
> Aren't you glad you have a text editor to do that?� Better than compile,
> run till break, debug, recompile, run till break, wash rinse repeat,
> especially for a large executable.
> >
> >
> > Contrast that with the much less powerful MACH3 system where you select
> > from the menu "Config/Ports and Pins/Input
> Signals/Probe". And then there is simple touch off operations under
> "Offsets(Alt-5)" Other MACH3 screens are possibly more
> sophisticated.
> >
> > And perhaps the best example of all is the Tormach LCNC interface which
> > also simplifies things because in this case the*_hardware
> is known._*
> Underlining and bolding is mine� The three key words.� Like I mentioned
> above, all is possible if all machines in the world run the same
> identical electronics, same identical mechanicals and are known to the
> manufacturer from the get go.� How much you want to bet the programmers
> that developed PathPilot around their machines, with known hardware,
> still had to do a bit of editing of Hal and ini files to get the final
> product running and ready for production? And that's because like you
> said, the hardware is known.� But it was unknown until the developers
> put the Pathpilot package together.
> >
> > So if you are content with command line/editor operations great. I'm happy
> > it's working for you. But if we want more users
> involved in the LCNC community something has to change.
>
> Not really.� If you want something changed, do it, get it to work, and
> if the head developers think it's worthwhile, they'll include it in the
> distribution.� But expecting a large software project such as this to
> come hard to port just to satisfy the whims of a few users is nonsense.
>
> IMNSHO.
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > IMHO.
> >
> > John Dammeyer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
