UI improvement wish list suggestions?

I finally managed to catch up on the community postings and ran into an interesting thread started by BML on Mar. 8. BML raised several issues of unexpected (perhaps annoying?) CC and CCPro behaviors and others suggested workarounds. As someone who used to teach about good user interface design (but is now retired with time enough for CNC projects), I’m troubled by bad UI design.

Like BML I like CCPro, but I also share concern that there are a few UI issues that are frustrating. So I’m hoping to invite everyone to contribute their favorite way to improve the CC/CCPro UI. BML already suggested a 3D finish path that pays attention to the tools step over percent. I’ll add the suggestion that drawing shapes, such as a rectangle, should pull from a corner, and not the center. We already have a nice centering tool, and the most widely used standard for graphics is to pull from a corner.

Please note that some suggestions, probably this one, have been posted before. But if the UI hasn’t improved, maybe a reminder isn’t so bad.

1 Like

I agree std behavior for a rectangle would be corner to corner. We already have the option to hold CTRL and draw corner to corner. I’d suggest we make that the default, and use CTRL to draw from center.

Metric/Inch should be open & available at all times, rather than buried in the setup menu

Notes should be a menu option so you can access it from everywhere
Now that I think of it, the “Setup” bar could be present in all tabs??

We have a “Snap to Grid” toggle. A “Snap to node” toggle would be cool. Hotkeys for both would be even better.

Rotation in the 3D views is odd. I think rotation should be relative to the view, not the model space.
Lighting is also, I think relative to model space. I think it should also be fixed in the view.
Rotation center point could also be in the center of the view. If I zoom in & rotate the model rotates out of the window.??

For geometry creation, OK, APPLY, CANCEL buttons would be nice. OK creates the object & dismisses the dialog, Apply creates the object & leaves the dialog to create another, Cancel just dismisses the dialog without creating anything.

Geometry selection for toolpaths is wonky. Even after 2 yrs I still select a toolpath, then realize I forgot to select geometry first. If vectors are selected it should use them, otherwise let us assign them in the toolpath dialog.

When working on or viewing someone else’s file, if they have used custom tools we can’t see the tool definition. An option to “Add tool to library” option, or at least a properties / info button for the tool would be good.

The same happens with fonts. Although fonts are not CC proprietary so at best we could expect the font name & any other information relevant to acquiring that font.

Organization in the toolpath list is good (groups). “Save toolpaths”, and maybe Simulation as well should be based on the currently selected group or toolpath, rather than everything that’s enabled.

Modeling changes the 3D texture back to cherry. It’s a bit of a pain to keep going back to toolpath simulation to change it back to the material you want.

Library, posts & tools should not be embedded in the software. They should all be in the data directories.

CM should be the same for tools, that way tool prompts could use custom tool data, and the user could share/copy tool database from CC to CM
CM should also have exposed macros, so the toolchange, measure tool, set zero, end of program macros can be customized.

That’s all I can think of now. I’m sure others will add more. :slight_smile:


It would be really helpful if we had a list of requested features within this topic that was maintained on some periodic refresh - so we can see what’s been “registered” with Carbide. Then a disposition of each would be awesome (completed (ver xxxx), rejected, pending, next release, etc.).

This would reduce the redundancy and confusion - and I would imagine it would make Carbide’s life easier when it comes time to selecting features to be considered.

Some other manufacturers allow their clients to vote on what they consider to be the most important feature requests. There is no implied commitment on the part of the company to prioritize development (that is made perfectly clear during the voting process) - they just want to get a feel for the popularity of certain features.

I think we all could benefit from such a list.

  • Gary
1 Like

I vote with my wallet.

Yeah…I think we all do. I guess it would be a good idea for a company to try to get ahead of that decision-point, eh? Find out what the customers need and maybe encourage more folks to open that wallet!