But, it’s not all that hard either. IIWMP - I’m assuming G-Code commands are differential so one cannot just look at a line of code get the XYZ coords. The program could very easily start from the beginning and without moving the spindle or gantry walk through every G-Code line, keeping track of latest point where the bit was pulled above the surface, and accumulate the results of the commands. This would give an absolute location. The program would then require the operator insure the correct bit was loaded, option to change if necessary. The program could then turn on the motor and move to the correct XYZ and start running the Code from that point. I understand, there is the potential to move to a place where it would pick up in the latter stages of a loop cut, where the first several passes of that loop have not been completed. Do that, and sorry, probably break a tool, but I think a reasonably astute operator could find a good place to restart the run.
That said, let’s talk about another think I would really like to see in carbide motion - In CC we have the option of watching the cutting process. Would it be so difficult to show that in CM as it runs?
While I’m on the subject of things I would really like to see - I really like being able to split up a project and put sections of a project on different layers. Is there not some way in CM that I could be able to specify which layers to run and which to skip - Laurent offered excellent advice - Create as many layers in CC as you can then if you get a crash, turn off the ones already completed, presumably make a new C2D file and run from there. Would it be so very hard to activate / deactivate layers in CM?
And speaking of layers, one can separate sections of a project and put them on separate them into layers. Would it be so difficult to allow for construction lines in CC. These would allow me draw boxes, circles or closed shapes and everything inside would be active everything outside inactive. This would allow me to break up a big project in smaller sections to be carved separately. We already have the ability to draw the boundaries, only difference is a construction layer would not affect the G-Code and would not indicate a path to be cut.
“Anything else?” Good of you to ask - The machine can only cut within closed loops, cutting everything inside the loop until it comes to the boundary of another closed loop inside the previous. Each time it comes to a loop boundary, it toggles between cutting and not cutting. Cool. For this reason you can never have an odd number of lines meeting at a point. Starting with the edge of the board, the first closed loop, the program does not cut until it finds a boundary. Okay, so what happens if you have 2 closed loops that cross each other. Well that depends on if the intersection point has been connected, if so, the 2 loops break into 3 loops - If not, it’s an error, and it’s important to find all these errors and fix them before you start cutting. It would be good if tool path could highlight these issues - preferably color code - making it easier to correct.
Now that we are on the subject of editing - I see a picture on the internet. I capture it with snip tool, save it to a png file then import it into a scene I’m working on. This sounds really cool, but it means a lot of editing is going to be required, and that’s a lot of work - Almost as bad as sanding. There are a number of things that would make it easier. If you have a line that does not create a closed loop, this is a vector error. It needs to be corrected. Draw a line from the end of that line to the other open end, there has to be one, or let the program do it and then correct what it did by adding points, dragging, bending whatever. What would really help is if we had a snip tool allowing me to delete any line segment between 2 points on a continuous line. I know this creates an error by making 2 loose ends - I can fix those - There are so many times when I want to change loop arrangement.
I know what you’re thinking - If he has so many complaints, if he hates it so much, why did he buy this thing? Wrong - I love this machine - I have worked with a number of the cheap ones and a few of the very expensive ones, and hardware wise, hands down, this is a fantastic mechanical design. An order of magnitude better than all of the $500 to $1000 cheap alternatives, and I think competing very well with some the $50,000 options. Absolutely ideal for the customer considering the cheap alternative and decides to spend a little more and get real quality. (When you buy quality, you only cry once.) That said, I feel the only weakness is the limited options in the software, and good news, software improvements are easiest and cheapest to correct. I think in terms of marketing, a few additions to the existing software would create a major decision point for potential customers resulting in a significant increase in market share.
Adrian
