New Update
May 1, 2008 · Filed Under MeshCAM Development
Run the Check for Updates command in 6908 and let me know how it works.
Comments
18 Responses to “New Update”
Run the Check for Updates command in 6908 and let me know how it works.
18 Responses to “New Update”
Robert,
The check and up date worked just fine.
The new angle limits make a lot more sense than the 6908 ones, still some weird and strange looking paths but nothing seems fatal. I’ll have to some real cutting tests.
Jeff
Check for update worked fine. It would be a bit more refined if meshcam auto downloaded the update, shut down automatically, run setup, and restarted. Not unlike firefox…
On a longer time line I’d like to do that. This was my attempt to get a lightweight solution up and running quickly that should be trouble-free. I know more about machining algorithms than I do the types of problems that can popup doing network code on a client computer; I was afraid of being over-ambitious.
-Robert
Robert,
Didn’t work since I have Meshcam blacklisted in my firewall.
Just kidding! Check for update did work fine. The waterline/parallel division of labor is impressively better than prior releases. If I’d realized it was a bug, I’d have nitpicked sooner!
Randy
Check for updates, worked just fine.
Worked for me.
Bob
Update check worked fine for me too.
I’ll be doing some modals over this weekend so I’ll get chance to see how it all works.
Steve
Update check worked fine for me too.
Tried it in 6908 and found 6910 beta, which works fine here even though its a WIN98SE-system.
Richard
Very nice, Much better. The only thing more I could possibly ask for, is that someday you make the parallel finish a little more intelligent. Right now as Randy said “any surfaces between two horizontal surfaces that are at different levels, will also be machined.” It would be wonderful if it could somehow identify different horizontal surfaces, and create a separate parallel finishes for each of them; resulting in a more “Optimal” (as Robert described it in the yahoo group) tool path. Perhaps a feature of Mesh CAM 3…
Daniel - I would like to do exactly that. I have some basic code in there now that can be leveraged to do this but it’ll probably be a couple of months before I risk breaking the parallel finishing code again.
-Robert
I came up with another feature request, definitely not critical but… It would be cool if in the define stock menu there was an option for cylindrical stock. The thought came to me while thinking about machining a small moai head from some cylindrical machinable wax using the four axis machining feature of your software.
Apologies…I have another feature request. I think this is a good one. Much better then my last. I have a Taig and I am always being limited by the 5.5″ Y-axis. It would be awesome if your software had a feature to divide big parts into bite size pieces. Two approaches come to mind . A & B
A) Break a large part into pieces: one thing I would like to do is machine patterns for slumping glass plate into. If i wanted to make a 12 inch square pattern, I would have to divide it into 3 pieces, then machine a piece at a time. 12″ happens to be my x-axis limit, however I can foresee the need to go larger in that axis also. In short… divide the whole part into user specified X&Y sized pieces that can be assembled to make the larger piece. E.g. for my glass application each piece would be a rectangular wax block. The blocks would then be wax-welded together, then used to make a large refractory mold for the glass to be slumped into. This approach would give me virtually unlimited size in X and Y for the final assembled part. I can see this being useful for wood and plastics as well.
B) Using a low profile rotary table laying horizontally on the table to allow the part to be rotated half way through the machining operation. Approach B would in theory give me the ability to machine an 11″ diameter circle, basically double my Y-axis maximum.
A is my favorite.
Hi Robert,
I ran 4 parts together with the new 6908. These are my observations. I ran the first side with two sided machining using the machine whole stock option. I must say that I am really impressed. Wow. It was clean, made very few useless z movements and was fast.
I then flipped the parts and ran the bottom using the same set up only this time I chose to only machine the part plus the bit width. Hummm, Lets just say that it was not as clean, had lots of useless z movements and really chopped up the pockets for no apparent reason. It would do one line then go to the other end of the part and do one or two lines and then just randomly jump around. It actually took longer to run this than the machine all stock option!
The finish paths both looked the same and I agree with the others that the angle option makes more sense now.
For what it is worth, This is a great leap forward for the software and you are really on the right path.
Thanks,
Lyle
Lyle- Can you send me screenshots of the problems?
Daniel- You have to watch out with those suggestions or you’ll end up being labeled troublemaker with Randy and Jeff. Remind me about the A version later. I think the scripting could be upgraded slightly to add a way to script that since it’s really just a way to define the stock size and position. I don’t think I’d add a dedicated c command for this but I think it would be a good test for scripting as I move forward.
-Robert
Troublemaker?!? I think I’d rather stick with “strange but valid”…
You seem to have eradicated the path linking glitch I had pointed out, Robert. Thank you.
Randy
Robert,
You can’t mean me :-).
There must be 1000’s of other Jeffs attempting to wreck havoc on innocent program developers. And they probably all use “strange but valid” Randy as a role model
Keep up your good work and us terrorists will soon have to get real jobs.
Jeff
Is there a way get the updates without using the “check for updates” method. The computer I use doesn’t have a network card so I’ve been loading everything with a flash drive.
-Dave
All future updates, including another in the next few days, will be posted here as well. This was just a test.
-Robert