21
Mach4 General Discussion / Re: The great screen debate
« on: August 24, 2015, 08:59:36 AM »
The problem with having the cycle start button run both G-code and the MDI is that the MDI does not clear after execution.
Therefor, if the operator does not remember to clear the MDI, it will execute again when Cycle Start is pressed.
The multi-line MDI is probably my favorite new 'screen feature' and it would not be nearly as useful if it had to be cleared each time you want to run G-code, especially if it contains a multi-line routine that is run before or after the G-code.
If semantics are the issue, then the buttons could be renamed "G-Code Run" and MDI Execute" or something similar. This way, whatever pre-conceived notions there may be about what "Cycle Start' should do are moot.
In addition to the above arguments, there is the issue of multiple MDI entry points and multiple 'Cycle Start' buttons. How many of each should there be? What would the correct interaction be between them? Should Cycle start check all of the mdi? What if there are different commands in mdi1 and mdi2?
Therefor, if the operator does not remember to clear the MDI, it will execute again when Cycle Start is pressed.
The multi-line MDI is probably my favorite new 'screen feature' and it would not be nearly as useful if it had to be cleared each time you want to run G-code, especially if it contains a multi-line routine that is run before or after the G-code.
If semantics are the issue, then the buttons could be renamed "G-Code Run" and MDI Execute" or something similar. This way, whatever pre-conceived notions there may be about what "Cycle Start' should do are moot.
In addition to the above arguments, there is the issue of multiple MDI entry points and multiple 'Cycle Start' buttons. How many of each should there be? What would the correct interaction be between them? Should Cycle start check all of the mdi? What if there are different commands in mdi1 and mdi2?