Hello Guest it is March 29, 2024, 02:21:22 AM

Author Topic: Parameter Discussion  (Read 6772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Parameter Discussion
« on: February 27, 2013, 11:16:29 PM »
Apparently, we are moving the discussion. I still think there is a need to improve the parameter names.

****

I think getting the terminology consistent in the dialogs will go a long way. I fully understand there are numerous ways which can make sense for the specification of the parameters. As long as the drawing is consistent with the form and that all of the forms are consistent, we can work with what makes sense to you.

Having said that, allow me to rationalize a potential change. You have a specification for Zzero in the diagram in the video (bolt circle). You also have a Ztop parameter both in the picture and on the dialog form. So far so good. The picture shows Zdepth, but the dialog shows Depth. Also, looking at the picture, Zdepth is referenced from Ztop, not Zzero, indicating to me that I was supposed to enter the depth of the cut. However, you are saying that Zdepth is always the final Z level, which in the drawing should be referenced from Zzero. This is where the confusing part is.

If I were king of the world, I would change the name Zdepth to Zbottom (which pairs with Ztop), and potentially remove Zzero from the drawing, since it shouldn't be used in the specification of any of the parameters. So the parameters become:

Ztop   (Top level of the cut)
Zbottom (Bottom level of the cut)
Zstep (Step of cut: Always >= 0)

I suppose a Zrapid height should also exist.

Hopefully that made some sort of sense.

Thanks for listening,
Kevin
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 08:26:35 AM »
Ah, I just read your note closer, you are looking at the video. The code has changed a good deal since then, and I think we have it consistent now

Load the code and see if that is better.
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 11:55:34 AM »
Ah, I just read your note closer, you are looking at the video. The code has changed a good deal since then, and I think we have it consistent now

Load the code and see if that is better.


Yes, that is better. I still like Z Bottom to match Z Top, but I can live with this. :-)

But wait, there's more!

Would love to be able to name my operations. Rather than having 5 'Rectangle' operations in a row, can we name them independently? I think that would be really useful.

A finishing pass would also be lovely. If I could specify perhaps a .01 finishing pass, and have it do a final small cut, that would be awesome.

Kevin
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 12:21:41 PM »
Ron,

Now that I am playing around with the prototype, nicely done sir! This is going to be a really cool program. Some things I noticed:

Looking at the Gear operation, the picture in the right hand box. The picture and the boxes don't match. There is Depth in the picture, and Tool Depth in the dialog. There is also a Rapid Height in the picture, but no setting for it.

I would like the ability to set the default origin as part of job settings. I am fine being able to change them in the operations, but being able to set them as part of the job settings would be helpful for me not screwing up! The scenario I have in mind is I have a part in my vise, and am using the NW corner (like I always do) for the origin.

The Cut Circle operation shows the origin dynamically. This is an interesting feature, but I was rather confused by it. I would have assumed that circle operations are usually around a point. If I look at the Surface Stock and Rectangle operations, the origin mark is the the starting position. In the Circle, the origin mark is actually the coordinate origin rather than the center of the circle. Perhaps the dialog should use X center and Y center instead of Origin? Either way, the dynamic drawing is a cool idea but still confusing.

The Keyway operation left hand picture, it would be nice to label the start

The Spline dialog drawings either aren't done yet, or are in need of help. They look more appropriate to a keyway.

Looking at the Link operation. I don't understand the result of this operation based on the picture. Maybe it is just me!

Again, this looks great!
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2013, 12:31:15 PM »
One other quick note. I am able to select multiple operations in the operations list. If I click Delete, it only deletes the first one. Kind of expected to be able to delete all of the selections.

Offline BR549

*
  •  6,965 6,965
    • View Profile
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2013, 12:43:47 PM »
Single Line deletions are the best WHEN you do not have an UNDELETE button(;-).

Just a thought, (;-) TP
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2013, 08:41:45 PM »
Ron,

I have been playing with the beta again today. So far I have liked it, and would love it more if:

The operation list on the left side, it would be nice to add a comment or two to some of the operations. Specifically:
 
  • Tool Change (#<tool number>:<Diameter>) would be a nice touch, just so I can keep track.
  • <User Defined Operation Name> (Operation Type) so I can keep these straight.
  • A two character indent on the operation vs the tool change

So it might look like:

Job Settings
Tool Change (#19:0.25)
   Mounting Holes (Hole Line)
   Motor Mount (Bolt Circle)
Tool Change (#4:.201)
   Tap Holes (Hole Line)
   Upper mount holes (Hole Rectangle)
   Lower mount holes (Hole Line)   

Thoughts?
Kevin
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2013, 10:06:20 PM »
I just made a part that took 9 operations, including rough cuts and finish passes of 3 features, and I was thinking about the idea of a user defined name associated with the operation. I had not though about the tool change showing the diameter, but that is nice.

These are not likely to be added in the short term, but I will add this to my 'someday' list
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2013, 08:41:58 PM »
Ron,

I am now using 1.0.3

I created an operation 'Keyway Slot'. It is called Keyway Slot on both the 2D Milling drop down menu, and the Mill section of the buttons. It is also called Keyway Slot in the header of the dialog, and also in the comments in the GCode.

In the operation list, it is called a linear slot.  I really prefer the name linear slot, and would love to see it stay that way, which of course means changing it in a few other locations.

Under Drill in the drop down menu, there is an operation Circle of Holes. In  the Drill area of the main screen, it is called Bolt Circle. The dialog says Hole Circle, and the operation says Hole Circle. Before you fix that,  I have another request for a change in terminology. 

You have added a huge amount of functionality here, and I think it is awesome and extremely useful. Yay! It turns out that the 'Drill' section is no longer really just Drills. I think you have allowed us to specify patterns of holes. So I think perhaps renaming the 'Drill' category into a 'Hole Pattern' category. Within Hole Pattern, you have a Circular Pattern, a Rectangular Pattern, a Linear Pattern, and a List Pattern. 

I am also eyeballing the Linear Slot function which lets me give a finish pass. I am wishing that in the Hole Pattern 'Circle' and 'Pocket' operations I was able to specify a finish pass value. I would also love to be able to have the ability to select conventional for the roughing pass and climb for the finish pass on all of the milling operations.

I know I ask for much! I think it will make the program that much more awesome to use.

Kevin
Re: Parameter Discussion
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2013, 08:45:13 PM »
Oh no, he has another one!

In the 'Hole Pattern' operations, the code always ramps in a zig-zag. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to specify a helical cut as an option? Think of the lovely surface finish!

Kevin