Step Jog question

[Robertspark]

Most important question

Does the plugin now do everything you need it to do, including programmable macro buttons and all the same mach3 functionality.including being able to change the number of decimal places for the frost in uccnc and it still works fully?

[Robertspark]

If they would not provide the plugin source code, this is what I thought they would have provided instead...
Similar detail to this first post for the hb04

http://forum.planet-cnc.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1125

The manufacturer of a hid (human interface device) should see no risk in providing this information , as this is simply essential information to interface their device with as many applications as is possible.... So they will now be able to sell more hardware...

Again it is akin to providing modbus registers for a bit of hardware...

[spumco]

Most important question

Does the plugin now do everything you need it to do, including programmable macro buttons and all the same mach3 functionality.including being able to change the number of decimal places for the frost in uccnc and it still works fully?

The answer to that is no. It's almost there - the step rate is vastly improved, the step increments are acceptable, and if the update has fixed the G91 issue (too busy to try it yet) then that's another win. If the constructor macro problem gets solved then that's all the problems solved (I think).

Having the same programmable buttons available as in Mach3 would be very nice, but the lack of them isn't a bug. The user's manual for the UCCNC plugin - available on the site - does not claim that the same features are present as in Mach3. While the difference in plugin features isn't obvious, there's nothing deceptive that I can find. Do I want programmable buttons and more configuration options - of course! - but once I got over my initial disappointment that they were missing, I think of them like a feature request, not a complaint.

And while it would be helpful to have the source code or whatever to permit end-user fiddling or debugging, in the end it's Vista's product. Their reasons for not sharing are theirs - they're free to do as they see fit and I won't begrudge them for a moment. They're selling a very nice MPG for a reasonable price, and even if I feel a bit like a beta tester with the plugin so far they've been responsive. I've been unbelievably fortunate with all the online resources and helpful people over the past couple of years so maybe it's my turn to go through the process of fussing with something.

If it works out, the maybe UCCNC users get a better product option, VIsta makes some more money, and CNCDrive has a useful third-party accessory available to their customers. Hat-trick.

Had I bought this for significantly more money and/or were depending on it for a business - my feelings would be rather different.

-S

[cncdrive]

I think it should be likely not very hard to figure out for VistaCNC why the constructor macro can't run.
I mean they have the source code, so they could simply narrow the issue down with removing codes from the plugin to a point where the constructor macro start running and then they will know what is causing the issue.

I also think that adding configurable buttons should be very simple for VistaCNC.
Since they already receive button calls from the pendant via the plugin the only thing they should do is to call the button code which the user setup.
Ofcourse for that they have to make settings for the user in the plugin and write and read those keys in the profile file, but to add that to a plugin takes like 5 minutes of work.
So, the overal development should be easy and fast for them.

[spumco]

Another update...

I've tried the plugin that they updated to eliminate the G91 issue. As I mentioned, the plugin was calling G91 when the step jog mode was selected, and it was persistent - causing incremental mode unless manually switched with a G90 command in the MDI. Resulted in some unintended movement until I realized what was going on.

The update has solved this, it appears. When step mode is selected, the UCCNC stays in G90. When the MPG wheel is spun, G91 is invoked, but once the move is complete G90 is invoked. Seems to work quite well.

The odd thing is that the interference with the constructor and destructor macros is also gone. All the missing checkbox and field entries are back. Even the modified constructor macro edit (ShowMessage) Gerry suggested works.

What's odd is that VistaCNC indicated in an email that they couldn't figure out what I was talking about when I described the macro problem. Whatever, it appears to be fixed whether they intended to or got lucky - all settings are saved and reload properly at re-start.

I'll keep trying to find a problem, but so far the pendant and plugin seems to be problem-free at this point.

-S