Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Post anything you want to discuss with others about the software.

Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:58 pm

Here is a subject for discussion. Do you think that UCCNC should produce differnt versions for different moduals of UCCNC such as

Router
Plasma
Laser
Mill
Turn

Would there be any advantages to it or NOT. I know one of the problems in mach3 was trying to produce 1 program that did everything under teh sun from a single code base.

I have asked a lot of people this question over teh years and would like your ideas on teh matter.

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby cncdrive » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:13 pm

My opinion is a strong no.
Reasoning: A screenset and associated macros can separate different functionalities required for the different machine types.
The rest is g-codes which the user can select what to use and what's not for his machine and his jobs.
cncdrive
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:17 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:25 pm

In my thinking there are 3 basic moduals based on HOW the cutting is done.

Router and mill are similar enough to be the same process. Rotary cutting and 3D

Plasma and Laser are also similar enough to be teh same process. Slicing and 2D

Turn is always teh odd man :) Rotary stock with fixed (non Rotating) cutting edges.

.................

Plasma and Laser use teh least number of resources of CNC. It is simple 2D profiling motion.

Mill and router uses teh MOST resources of CNC

Turn is just ODD :o but can be complicated.

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby cncdrive » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:27 pm

OK, but different screensets could separate them. Then there is no need to make and maintain several different core codes.
cncdrive
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:17 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:40 pm

Lets take Plasma / Laser for an example. It does NOT need most of teh aux cnc functions. It does not need

Tool comp (height and radius)
Does not need 5 or 6th axis control
Does not need any drill or tap canned cycles
4th axis toolpathing
Multi view toolpathing ( Top view only )
tool changes
Tool table support
Fixture offsets
etc
etc.

Would removing everything that is NOT needed make teh Program more stable over time. The needs for Plasma /Laser are very simple and once developed could run for a long time without futher functions added. YES?? NO??
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:46 pm

Poor Old TURN, Quite teh fellow he is. It does things that nothing else needs.

G96
G97
G95
G33 Encoder threading
G76
Mirrored 2d toolpath display
XYC axis control
Radius comp based on tool contour edges
etc
etc

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby cncdrive » Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:48 pm

But UCCNC does not support lathe, so it is not an issue yet.
cncdrive
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:17 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby extent » Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:40 pm

Vmax549 wrote:Would removing everything that is NOT needed make teh Program more stable over time.


Only if you are completely abandoning development of the mill functions. You could create a stripped down version, but all you've actually accomplished in that case is created a larger overall codebase (with all 3 individual cores) with more redundant code that needs to be maintained, increasing the overall complexity and increasing the likelihood of bugs. The benefits in reducing maintenance complexity far outweigh any possible gains from unrolling to separate cores.

I'm not even sure what gains you would expect to see, it's not like the path planning for a laser is any different than the path planning for a mill. 90% of the features called out are, as mentioned, just a matter of screen set, and otherwise have 0 overhead when not in use.

And if you're happy with a simpler feature set then why not just use what's released now and never update it again? Once you have a release that's feature complete for the mode you're using there's nothing that says you have to update the software constantly. You can do the "run for a long time without futher functions added" thing yourself literally any time you want to.
extent
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 11:09 pm

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:43 am

An interesting thought but I do not rememeber seeing any commercial controllers that are multimode.

You have Mill/Router controllers and priced based on wanted features.

You have Turn controllers and priced based on wanted features

You have Laser controllers

You have plasma controllers

And none seem to overlap into other modes. Turn won't run a mill and mill won't run a laser and laser can't run turn.

Interesting, (;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: Differnt UCCNC moduals as seperate versions

Postby Vmax549 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:45 am

An interesting thought but I do not rememeber seeing any commercial controllers that are multimode.

You have Mill/Router controllers and priced based on wanted features.

You have Turn controllers and priced based on wanted features

You have Laser controllers

You have plasma controllers

And none seem to overlap into other modes. Turn won't run a mill and mill won't run a laser and laser can't run turn.

Interesting, I wonder why that would be ??

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Next

Return to General discussion about the UCCNC software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests