I agree that an iPad or tablet appears to be an excellent user interface. The motion controlling portion is the only portion of the code that needs to be synchronised. Real-time operating systems can be used or the playback approach are alternatives.
The advantage this group has is assisting people solve machine problems (i.e. a 3HP mill is not a 3D printer). The machinekit fork I believe tried to clean up the underlying technology. On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 12:54, Chris Albertson <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem that is limiting LCNC's wider use is that it is a very old > design. It is definitely not what anyone would design today. And it is > not what moderned users expect or want. Documentation i=will not change > what it is. > > Today, if this were being built again from scratch it would > > Run on any computer and not require some special real-time version of > Linux. The user interface would be written in some portable way so it > could be accessed even on a iPad or Andriod tablet or from macOS or > Windows. This is possible. I proved it to myself just a few days > ago. I have a 12 DOF robot here that is being driven by a Raspberry Pi > and the user interface is web-based or X11 based and in theory, should work > on other platforms. > > Should not need a real-time OS on the computer. The real-time stuff (al > of it) goes in hardware, Leaving only not-t=real-time tasks to the > PC/Mac/iPhone > > It would configure 100% with no need to edit a single file by hand. > > It would have a conversational system so that a user could do simple things > with no need to write g-code. > > People care less about if it is free then if it acts like the above. > > What I would do is design some kind of real-time module. Perhaps that > would be made of Mesa cards with different firmware or of microcontrollers > like "Teensy" and each of these could handle some number of axies. Maybe > four. Then you use multiple of these to drive a larger machine of a > robot. > > The 1980's was 40 years ago. Yes it really has been that long. LCNC is > using 1980s software technology and people today are expecting the 21st > century and mostly getting what they expect. Think of a basic 3D > printer. It is no different from a milling machine just mechanically > lighter weight. The whole thing, g_code interpreter and all is a cheap > package with a self-contained controller One does not need to hunt > dumpsters for antique desktop PCs and then install specialist OSes on > them. The controller is built-in and pre-programmed. > > That said. I use LCNC because it does what I want and uses the 40 years > old (maybe 50 years old now) technology I'm familiar with. Yes it is that > Old. I was a computer science student back when this wascutting edge and > I'm retired now. > > Big goals for any new system should be > 1) cross platform, especially mobile device friendly > 2) zero file editing (zero, not just a small number) > 3) modular, you can swap out parts and add parts as requirements change. > 4) today we have "The Cloud" It could live at Amazon or in your own shop. > Some prefer to let a big company manage things, others like to buy their > own equipment is mess with it themselves. Either way should work. But a > modern CNC system would run any number of mills and lathes and laser > cutters and have any number of user interface screens and pendants. Jobs > are moved and assigned to available shop equipment as needed. The cloud > (local or remote, acts as a kind of NxM switch with storage and computation > while the local controller talks to motors. Today, I expect "job > persistence" as I move between screens that are on my Phone or in the > office of the shop. The cloud connects running processes that are on a > milling machine with the design files and operator screens while the > microsecond-level real-time jobs are handled by any number of little > controllers. TodayI'd add cameras to the system too. I decent model is > "Octoprint". I can control or monitor prints from any screen. Any > screen in the building or in my pocket could control any screen with no > handoff required. Just sign-on and your work is there. > > The problem is that all of the above would take many man-years of > development and there is no motivation to work on this for free. There > needs to be some kind of business model. Some conly has to design they > will develop this andthen make a living by consulting and hosts cloud > processes. > > But without an changes LCNC will be using 60 year old tech inanother 10 > years, then 70 and so on. It is already a non-starter in the eyes of many > people. it will just get more and more that way. > > The market for this is huge. Some one could make millions but the up front > effort and the existing big players will prevent that. > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:46 AM Jérémie Tarot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Le jeu. 23 déc. 2021 à 20:05, John Dammeyer <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > > > ... > > > > But I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea in the new year to develop a > > > build thread that takes a beginner through conversion of a mill to LCNC > > so > > > it appears to be turnkey like the perhaps the ACORN CNC approach. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > While working on docs translations migration and thinking about future > > documentation work, "my" idea along this line would be to > develop/document > > a set of "reference implementations" to be used as plug and play recipes > or > > basis for adaptation. > > > > These would cover all the usual suspects of DIY CNC projects like router, > > laser, plasma, mill, lathe builds/conversion/retrofits. > > These docs may provide infos for the size sensitive components for the > > reader to adapt. > > > > Another (complementary) approach would be to add to the docs a library of > > well crafted howtos about the setup of the various subsystems like > motion, > > spindle/torch, coolant, limits, e-stop... Some kind of decision tree > could > > be provided to lead the implementor who'd find the appropriate support > doc > > for each choice he'd make. > > > > For those of us that like to tinker with machines anyway, LinuxCNC is > > already just great... For the rest of the world that'd better have a > > machine that they can use to make stuff, we need to provide setups that > > "just work" in a way or another. > > > > Willing to work on this after docs migration and french translation is > > done. I'm all in to bring LinuxCNC goodness to the masses without putting > > the burden on the devs who I'd rather have working on fancier things for > > the future... > > > > As I may be unable to build an actual machine for the foreseable future. > I > > plan to start building docs using vismach, then move to tabletop/lab > setups > > with small real components, etc... > > > > All these reference docs could have a category and a dedicated thread in > > the forum to hold discussions, requests and criticisms. > > > > TY > > Jérémie > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emc-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > > > > -- > > Chris Albertson > Redondo Beach, California > > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
