Not sure I understand your post fully but there should be a popup to save to the current C2D file, or save to a new C2D file. (The Save as G-code will be greyed out for you) If you click “Save to a New C2D” and then overwrite the existing file, there should be no harm down since it’s the same contents.
Just to add some clarity about the new C2D format in general:
When using the standard File->Save or File->Save As commands, the toolpath data will always be saved there as well, as long as the toolpaths are done calculating. If you save the current file and the toolpaths are not done calculating then you’ll get a popup letting you know that the toolpath data could not be saved in the file.
I guess a scroll bar is going to be a necessity if the options go beyond the screen resolution height.
I also have a 13" Macbook Pro early 2015 model. The screen resolution is 2560 x 1600 which gives you an effective 800 pixels in height when running at 2x scaling (default retina scaling).
On the 13" Macbooks (non-Pro), the screen is at 2304x1440 resolution, but it runs it at 2x scaling for the retina screen so you effectively get a 720 pixel high screen.
The minimum requirements state a 1280x1024 resolution, which would be above the effective resolution on those machines.
I understand that 1280x1024 seems like a reasonable minimum resolution, but I think 1280x720 is a more realistic expectation for a minimum resolution. Especially if you have users with cheap 7" Raspberry Pi screens running at 600 or 800 pixels high.
Even for business class Dell laptops, the default screen resolution was 1280x720 until a year or two ago.
Ouch. CC not outputting G Code. CM has great work flow but has lots of limitations in flexibility Way back I had a discussion on the limitations of CM and the form/C3D, suggested alternative G senders. So I was happy and understood that CM had a purpose and direction it was going in and that I had simple choices of G-Code senders I could use. So now I need to load into CM just to get a G-code file out so I can then use a G-sender with more flexibility option. Ouch.
I am starting to feel the pain of the C3D business machine. I did not sense this back when I was choosing which company to go with. In fact I sensed quit the opposite. and was a major reason I went this way. Sounds like C3D is going down a very dangerous path of damaging a core value. Sorry But I was really impressed with the openness and the willingness to play well in the sand box with others that I saw before and well now … Ouch
Still thinking on this on how the work flow will go. I design in my office, I then have to send it to my shop, then go to the shop, fire it all up so I can export it to a G-code file so I can send it back to my office In my current set up and project library.
Yes I get we can make it work however I believe (@robgrz ) this creates “friction” with the users, that we have to use a proprietary file, change our work flow, add extra steps and even change equipment as suggested above.
I too feel this is a negative step for C3D. The machine is ‘as good if not better’ than the price-point comparisons, but this smothering bundle and reluctance to support anyone not using C3D wall-to-wall seems to me to close down what had been an appealing, open approach. A Maker’s machine in the spirit of Makers. Why dumb down the package but still produce a best in class machine?
Maybe I am not a good reference point as I have stopped using CC and CM in favour of Vectric, Fusion360, grbl-HAL and gSender as the software/machine suite, having found the C3D software even before this too basic, too proscriptive or both - adequate to get started, but quickly found lacking.
Something born in the spirit of open-source, crowd funding, community and openness seemingly travelling in the opposite direction. Chasing the Dollar? but perhaps at the expense of who’s pocket the Dollar comes from?
@Bozo - I love my SO3XL/HDZ, it reliably and repeatably does what it ‘says on the tin’ as a machine, and I applaud C3D for its creation. I would love one of the later machines, perhaps a little unnerved by their few quality issues reported, but all things can be and are overcome in time. No doubt in my mind that this is a good machine and by definition therefore C3D are good machine creators and makers.
Sounds like a lot of improvements to the software. However, taking away the ability to output gcode is a terrible move. For example, I had planned to create circuit boards but the auto-leveling software all takes gcode input and modifies it to create the final program to run. Being able to load gcode into different simulation software is also pretty important, especially when away from the machine (which is a LOT of the time).
People don’t like disruptive changes like this, especially when it is something literally nobody asked for and cuts out long included features only to hold them hostage for large amounts of money. Many have a workflow that has been honed over time and is based on working in the gcode files directly at times. Old timers learn a workflow and use it. They don’t want to learn a whole new workflow, they just want to keep making stuff.
I didn’t base my decision to buy a Shapeoko on the ability to work with the gcode because I figured that was the standard language for a CNC milling machine. I never saw this coming. This is the type of change that leaves customers bitter for a very long time and corrodes their happiness and interest in sharing recommendations.
I recommend restoring gcode export and put some of the brand new features in the paid version.
Are there any other key features slated to be moved to paid Pro only version in the future we should know about?
Gary, I’m fully aware of the “template” concept. The software I work on during the day (Unigraphics / NX) is entirely based on templates for machining. Even the “Out of the Box” setups are from templates.
I can modify the templates that come with the software, and/or I can create my own templates with the operations pre-setup, and even include geometry that can be quickly modified or replaced. Way cool idea!!!
I have a “clean-up.c2d” file that surfaces a rectangle using a fly cutter. I can open it, change the size of the rectangle, and output any number of gcode files, like “cleanup_13x13”, etc… It always cuts to Z0, so it gets used frequently when setting jobs up.
I’ve only used layers in maybe 2 out of 50 project files I have in CC. To me, layers is a way to organize the geometry during design. And if I want to modify the geometry on a layer, then update the toolpath, it’s easy to turn on just that layer, edit the toolpath, and “select all” to re-assign the new geometry to the toolpath. I would very rarely use the “Select by Layer” option and would much rather just never see that extra dialog.
Perhaps if the new dialog only popped up when I don’t have geometry selected. I would only then see it when I forget to select something before creating the new operation. And if I want to assign by layer, then I could intentionally de-select everything (one quick click on the empty part of the screen) & create the operation.
I tried using Malewarebytes on the new CC, but they haven’t caught up with you guys yet. This is Ransomware in my book.
Having to buy the pro version to be able to run your shop as you need to be productive?
This is going to be a negative factor for those shopping for new machines. Good luck on that decision. I already have a problem with software rentals. $120 a year to be able to get updates to me on a fixed income is not a good thing. This is a hobby for me not a business. If this were in place when I was looking to buy, I’d have gone with a competitor. Sorry but this is fact.
I am about to get new bits and I am sorry to say this has left me somewhat “bitter”, pun intended, and may be looking elsewhere for additional purchases.
How long will it be to have to pay a “PRO” price on CM to be able to run native Gcode without it being a C2D file? This seems to be the route C3D is going. The writing is on the wall.
I see a potential issue with creating multiple C2D files. Say a user saves 2 different tool paths into files. You now have those 2 files + the original master. The user recognizes an error in the model before cutting and unknowingly opens one of the toolpath files (when all changes should be made in the master), makes the change, and saves the file. If the user didn’t recognize their mistake, then they have a lot of potential for future problems. Yes, the files should be saved with unique names, but is a new user going to understand that if you make a change in a toolpath file, it’s not going to update in the master? I believe that there should be some way to restrict or lock the user from making changes in the toolpath files so this doesn’t happen.
If I understand what I’m seeing, “Save G-Code” is now no different than “File → Save As…”
Previously, You would have your master (My_Project.c2d), and to output multiple GCode files you would enable one set of toolpaths & “Save GCode” (My_Project_Roughing.nc) , then disable those, enable the other and “Save GCode” again (My_Project_Finish.nc).
Now, rather than view it as a “Master” file, you can save the master as My_Project_Roughing.c2d, change the enabled operations & “Save As…” My_Project_Finish.c2d
At this point you could even delete the disabled toolpaths.
The problem being if there is a change to the geometry you have to update it in both files. Changes to the toolpaths would only apply to their respective files.
In software development I think this is called “regression”. You solve one problem, but create a bunch of others in the process.
It seems like a punishment to paying customers to weed out free loaders. I was once a freeloader, but I purchase Carbide Create products because I was able to use a free version and liked the simplicity of the software.
So, what you’d do now is have a c2d file that’s called, “Master Rectangle Cleaner Upper.c2d” (or “clean-up.c2d” in your case) and you will open it, change the size of the rectangle and output any number of NEW c2d files called, “Cleanup 1313, etc.” - You will NEVER EDIT those c2d files, but you’ll treat them just as you did the old .NC files. They will be there just to house the GCODE by name…yes, they’ll be slightly larger than the old .nc files, but not by much…yes, they’ll contain more info than is needed…but you are going to ignore that.
The only file you’ll edit is the MASTER c2d file (“clean-up.c2d”).
So, as I see this change - it ONLY effects people who are using a gcode driver other than CM. If you’re in that boat, you need to either load the c2d into CM and export the GCODE, or buy CCPRO and export it directly from there. But if you’re producing multiple gcode files per design and still using CM to drive the machine, the only change for you is the size of the “gcode” file that you’re sending.
Hey @robgrz , can you please confirm that I am speaking the truth here?
You have to load it in to CM after you’ve used CM to connect to and initialize the machine. This is the “hardware key” that unlocks the GCode export.
For those of a technical bent, the new file format is just a SQLite3 database file.
All data is compressed in the relevant columns to reduce space, but the gcode is also encrypted (using salsa20).
I just did a test. If you create your “Master.c2d” file, you can open it in CM without ever selecting “Save Toolpaths”. It behaves exactly the same if you “Save Toolpaths” then use that file.
So, for my example I won’t even bother with the “Save Toolpaths” button. I’ll just modify the geometry to suit my current job, save it, then open it with CM & machine it. It will always be in the last state that I save it.
If I create a very common size that I think I will use again (13x13, for 12x12 jobs. Or 9x11.5 for 8 1/2 x 11 jobs) I can just save those from CM as G-Code.
“Save GCode File” in CM is giving an error if the file doesn’t already exist. If you create an empty text file, then save to it, it works fine. But the save file dialog still says “Open”, so perhaps the file manager is in the wrong mode. Save should let you create a new file, where Open would expect an existing file.
Huge problem with those of us that like to verify our Gcode before going to the machine. Now I have to send it out to the shop, walk there, start the machine, connect to the machine, open the file, output as GCode, transfer back to my office, walk back inside, verify the code, and if I make any modifications to the CC file, repeat that whole process. Not Cool!!!
Ouch
) and doesn’t require me to load CM to get it.