On 2/11/2012 11:13 PM, Erik Christiansen wrote:
Here's Brian's post, as it came through this end of the email pipe:
» » »
Subject: Re: New dialects [Was: Do CAM instead? ]
Yes, much more readable. The downside is that you can't do a restart at
line without specifying which iteration of
One question, from someone who hasn't used CAM. The CAM package would
provide a way to specify the number of tool passes, to reach the final
depth of a machining operation?
I recently went away from redundant gcode lines with the added tool paths
for each z
by passing a file with the xy cut to a
On 2/11/2012 10:51 AM, BRIAN GLACKIN wrote:
One question, from someone who hasn't used CAM. The CAM package would
provide a way to specify the number of tool passes, to reach the final
depth of a machining operation?
I recently went away from redundant gcode lines with the added tool paths
Yes, much more readable. The downside is that you can't do a restart at
line without specifying which iteration of the outer loop to restart
from. And neither the GUIs nor the runtime support that.
For me, I simply go back to the oword call and rerun the particular
string. I am a hobbyist
On 11.02.12 10:51, BRIAN GLACKIN wrote:
One question, from someone who hasn't used CAM. The CAM package would
provide a way to specify the number of tool passes, to reach the final
depth of a machining operation?
Thankyou Brian, for replying to my question in that paragraph.
(Unfortunately,
Here's Brian's post, as it came through this end of the email pipe:
» » »
Subject: Re: New dialects [Was: Do CAM instead? ]
Yes, much more readable. The downside is that you can't do a restart at
line without specifying which iteration of the outer loop to restart
from. And neither the GUIs
On 10.02.12 13:13, craig wrote:
In considering progrmming languages it is worth noting that there are a
fair number of people, like me, who are clerically challenged. 80% to
90% of my errors are typographical. The number of such errors is highly
correlated to the number of key strokes.
