Planning new major release or just a small one?

Welcome to BoardCAD forums Software BoardCAD developers Planning new major release or just a small one?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3637

    Anonymous

    Hi,

    I’ve fixed some issues with loading of s3d files. Also added some optimizations and the g-code generating from brd model is working. havn’t tested it much, but the last 5 boards I’ve done have been done with this, fixing the bugs as I go. There are also a few functions in the g-code menu that missing from the current release. I think I’ve added functions for calculating the moment of ineteria and the fill mode on the board after the current release. The question is if we want to do a release now, or wait to add some new features. Currently there is issues with loading boardfiles from the new aku which I would like to fix before any sort of release. The two big new things would be to add support for loading(and writing) of the new s3dx files and the xml based brd files, but it might take some time. Other than that, the next big things on my list is g-code generation of HWS templates which is something I might have some fun with testing myself.

    Jonas, what do you think?

    #4572

    Anonymous

    Fixed the issue with loading .brd files. Another note, need to make the surface model for bezier board based on nurbs for major release. I know it’s in there, but need to be able to use it for my calculations.

    #4573

    Anonymous

    Haavard,
    Do you know how aku does it’s toolpath? It’s quite different right? because I get bumps on the toolpath from boardcad and from aku theres no bumps on the curve. I am talking about mainly transitions between concave into vee in the bottom cut..

    remember a while back I asked you if you could add a way to control the rail line rocker, do you think that could be done?

    #4574

    Anonymous

    @mocol wrote:

    Haavard,
    Do you know how aku does it’s toolpath? It’s quite different right? because I get bumps on the toolpath from boardcad and from aku theres no bumps on the curve. I am talking about mainly transitions between concave into vee in the bottom cut..

    remember a while back I asked you if you could add a way to control the rail line rocker, do you think that could be done?

    What are you using to generate the toolpath, the bezier model or the nurbs? What board? The only thing that I know of which will create bumps in the toolpath when transistioning from vee to concave is that the vector passes 90 degrees which means you go from one side of a bullnose to the other side of it. For a disc type of cutter this should not be an issue as the change is minimal. on the bullnose I try to cut with the flat so to speak when the cut normal is close to 90 degrees but it is still not very good.

    The rail editing is a good idea and something that I would like to try.

    #4575

    Anonymous

    Haavard,
    Creating the toolpaths from beziers only..

    What the aku does is it applies a smoothing algorithm when making the toolpath, so whatever that sits in between the slices (the interpolated chunks) will have continous curvature. On the 3D bay of the aku, if you toggle the wireview, thats what the “wires” represent, if you toggle solid board you will see the differrences, and it’s most apparent when the slices are very different between each other. Also, when on wireview you might see that some of the wirelines dissapear into the board and that’s another evidence of the 2 different models. (it’s not a z fighting issue;)

    What I think boardcad does is creates the toolpath based on the “common” surface model only, and it doesn’t always do a continuous curvature along the surface. Is that right?

    Concave into Vee is what shows it the best I think. Lets say, if you have a slice at 1’from tail with 5mm deep concave and a tail slice with a vee with 5mm, you will see an abrupt fall on the lower rail line.

    #4576

    Anonymous

    Could you send me a file which show this?

    #4577

    Anonymous

    sure, still the same old email oiltec ?

    #4578

    Anonymous

    Is there any chance we could heat up the Dev of BC guys?

    Since a long time I always thought you guys had to concentrate efforts to go the bezier curves way… Its the “industry standard” and imo its easier to edit.

    I think the immediate thing would be for a way to edit the bottom rail curve and improve the Haavards existing toolpath generation.

    It would probably make more sense to go shape3d way and use 3d beziers with a simpler approach. Thats what shape3d lacks.. its the simplicity. S3d is not feature rich compared to a industrial cad/cam suite, but for this industry it is a bit full on as the average guy just wants an easy and fast way to create.

    So, I propose that we create a shift in the development as of now.

    BC version 3 goals:

    -Create guidelines
    -Simplify/clean up GUI
    -Develop guided by the new guidelines.

    If you guys should ask me what I mean by new guidelines, I have to say, let go of the nurbs approach and invest in the 3D bezier approach.

    Yours sincerely,
    Chico

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.