On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:40:29 +, you wrote:
>> Haven't seen the belated 2.5 yet...
>
>It has, indeed, been "imminent" for a long time. I suspect that a lot
>of the delay has been due to the EMC lawyers.
Last time I asked here the reason given for the delay was bugs - not so
long ago either.
>
> Haven't seen the belated 2.5 yet...
It has, indeed, been "imminent" for a long time. I suspect that a lot
of the delay has been due to the EMC lawyers.
I have a suspicion that 2.6 will follow fairly shortly after 2.5.
It is available as pre-compiled packages, and as far as I know has few bugs.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:06:40 +, you wrote:
>On 27 January 2012 08:32, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>
>> I'm not asking that the existing G33 be abandoned, just an addition,
>> correct version added, preferably using G32.
>
>As I said earlier, that's fairly easy to do with the G-code remapping
>func
On 27 January 2012 08:32, Steve Blackmore wrote:
> I'm not asking that the existing G33 be abandoned, just an addition,
> correct version added, preferably using G32.
As I said earlier, that's fairly easy to do with the G-code remapping
functions in version 2.6.
--
atp
The idea that there is n
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:06:30 +, you wrote:
>On 26 January 2012 21:55, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>
>>>http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/delectron/g-code-programming-manual/14577-33189-_23.html
>>
>> Andy - that is for Milling Machines.
>
>"Typical function for lathes, can also be used in milling
On 26 January 2012 21:55, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>>http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/delectron/g-code-programming-manual/14577-33189-_23.html
>
> Andy - that is for Milling Machines.
"Typical function for lathes, can also be used in milling machines" is
what it says.
--
atp
The idea that there
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:20:22 +, you wrote:
>On 25 January 2012 08:27, Steve Blackmore wrote:
>
>> Be MUCH better if along the hypotenuse was G33.1 and along the axis was
>> G33 (or even better G32). At least then threading would be industry
>> standard.
>
>It isn't even that clear-cut:
>http:
well they both have a first name that starts with J LOL so I got one
letter right.
John
On 1/25/2012 6:04 AM, sam sokolik wrote:
> You can see it here.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACvRilmIKDQ
>
> (that was JohnK)
>
> I really like the flexibility over a standard. (I didn't know there was
You can see it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACvRilmIKDQ
(that was JohnK)
I really like the flexibility over a standard. (I didn't know there was
a 'standard' from research I have done) And with a little math - it
will make a perfect tapered thread. With re-mapping now there are even
IIRC Jeff Eppler cut a fusee for a mousetrap powered car...
John
On 1/24/2012 3:52 PM, John Prentice wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kent A. Reed"
>
>
>> Several items were called out recently as being show stoppers for
>> LinuxCNC. I do not aspire to learn the inner workings of Li
On 25 January 2012 08:27, Steve Blackmore wrote:
> Be MUCH better if along the hypotenuse was G33.1 and along the axis was
> G33 (or even better G32). At least then threading would be industry
> standard.
It isn't even that clear-cut:
http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/delectron/g-code-programmin
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:47:26 -0500, you wrote:
>And that is the reason EMC measures pitch along the hypotenuse.
>
>A fairly famous quote from Allan Kay goes:
>"Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible."
Butt you've made a simple thing complex.
Be MUCH better if along the
On 1/25/2012 1:11 AM, Kent A. Reed wrote:
> It may be annoying to know LinuxCNC works best with G-code programs
> tailored to it, but isn't this true also for other controllers?
Yes.
--
Keep Your Developer Skills Current
On 1/24/2012 4:52 PM, John Prentice wrote:
> On one hand I think it is unusual CNC behaviour in threading (so
> possible difficulties for CAM users without a special postprocessor).
John:
Since I haven't had the pleasure of using serious CAM software I don't
have first-hand experience with their
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 10:02 PM, andy pugh wrote:
> On 24 January 2012 21:52, John Prentice
> wrote:
>
> > (b) For most practical tapered pipe threads no one will notice the pitch
> > error. On one hand I think it is unusual CNC behaviour in threading (so
> > possible difficulties for CAM use
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:33:04 +
andy pugh wrote:
> On 24 January 2012 22:52, Kenneth Lerman
> wrote:
>
> > 4 -- Hire someone to do #2. (Don't even ask -- I have two prices
> > for my work on LinuxCNC, the first is free and you probably can't
> > afford the second.)
>
> This is the nub of th
On 24 January 2012 22:52, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
> 4 -- Hire someone to do #2. (Don't even ask -- I have two prices for my
> work on LinuxCNC, the first is free and you probably can't afford the
> second.)
This is the nub of the very crux of one of the problems.
None of the people who are in a po
On 1/24/2012 4:52 PM, John Prentice wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kent A. Reed"
>
>
>> Several items were called out recently as being show stoppers for
>> LinuxCNC. I do not aspire to learn the inner workings of LinuxCNC well
>> enough to contribute to discussion of the first item
On 24 January 2012 21:52, John Prentice wrote:
> (b) For most practical tapered pipe threads no one will notice the pitch
> error. On one hand I think it is unusual CNC behaviour in threading (so
> possible difficulties for CAM users without a special postprocessor). But on
> the other hand the c
- Original Message -
From: "Kent A. Reed"
>
> Several items were called out recently as being show stoppers for
> LinuxCNC. I do not aspire to learn the inner workings of LinuxCNC well
> enough to contribute to discussion of the first item, "No jog on
> feedhold".
>
> However, the sec
20 matches
Mail list logo
