Alan King wrote:
> First off, votes don't count much if you haven't actually done both of what
> ever is in question. The group can easily be tremendously wrong on a vote,
> simply because one way seems better than another from looking at it, if you
> don't actually construct both.
True, but thats the look of the draw, hopefully someone will have tried
or had experience etc.
> Hardly needed anyway, nothing to stop anyone from departing from instructions
> if they want to do it a different way. Two or three different ways isn't too
> many either.
No but if one person doing it is own way has a problem, he's on his own,
even with the help of others they cant really /see/ his problem except
by his description, to quote etc a picture is worth a thousand words,
and if your building the same thing then holding it in your hands has
got to be worth a thousand pictures, and if more than one person is
holding it, more chance of seeing the problems solution.
> Can't imagine anything coming close to as fast as what I've got for being put
> together. You could easily use printer rails etc if you like in place of them,
> but you'll have to spend more time getting them aligned. Once I give basic
> dimensions on mine and how to put together there won't be need for much else, if
> you want to make it different it'll still be a good basic guide. I could easily
So you've come this far on your own, hell even completed it etc, your
design may well be worth adopting I'm _not_ saying a johnny come lately
group of us banding together _will_ come up with anything better.
> put together 10 of my mechanics in a day, maybe just an afternoon. I doubt many
> others could do that. At only $75 or so for the hardware, it's a great thing to
> start with, then do more if you decide you need it.
But can everyone buy that hardware?
> The real thing is for me to decide to donate my board layout and code. Both
> are superior.
mmmmmmm, trumpet, own and blowing.....
You /dont/ know that its superior to something that may get built and
has not even been roughly designed etc, would be nice to see it mind,
I'm not saying yours is poor just that you cant really claim it to be
the best in the world unless its compared to the rest in the world.
> I understand how to do binary math properly, which very few
> people really do. Perfect binary division, so it always ends up on the correct
> step whether it's one or a few billion steps, and through all three dimensions.
Ha top man , I have nightmares about people and high level languages,
> dimensions. In other words you can add more dimensions by simply adding another
> variable set in the loop. It can move through 20 dimensions all at once and
Lol, ok so I am conversant with the first 4 dimensions but I am lost
after Time
> all be done straight in binary if you know what you're doing. Anyone tells you
> different then know for sure they may be a good programmer but they're quite
> lacking in binary math skills, even if they don't think so.
True.
> the way, and with controller based timing. Of course that can be put in too, so
> you can use other CAM programs that are out there for the interface. All the
> higher math is done on the PC side in my code, so it's easy to adjust how the
> user interface works. It works the way I'd want it to work. Only needs a
> little more user interfacing code and a few extras, I just left it at basic
> input statements since I knew exactly what I was making it do.
>
Sounds like you've looked into this well, will be nice to see.
Lez.