What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

zerblatt007
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:48 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by zerblatt007 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:37 am

Was there a question in there? :)

I could pay for software, I already have paid for Vectric cut2D & 3D - even if I think the price for 3D was a far stretch and it only runs on Windows that I also had to buy to use it..
But there is a limit on how much I am willing to pay for software used in hobby projects. That said, too cumbersome software uses up my spare time, and I do not want that either. I want to mill stuff, not wrestle with buggy sw.. :)

So, yes, if things are done right, I will pay for the convenience.
But with paid sw, I do expect more than from free software.

But you probably knew all this? :)
Shapeoko #958: Dual-Y drive, Double-X, Belt on outside, 1m Y-Axis, Acme Z, Opened up and boxed in. Kress 1050 Spindle.

kurt6string
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by kurt6string » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:13 pm

Ah, I'm not alone in the world :!:
And so, community - your thoughts on this weighty matter would be most appreciated. I'd like to make a living selling customized musician widgets, and providing useful software in this arena, while contributing to open-source and not irritating all of you with blatant self-interest. Where is the balance?
I'm just worried about finding a balance between the free app and a paid version, and wondering what the thoughts are in this given that Shapeoko is an open-source project. In my head I hear one school of thought saying 'evil' (paid app), another saying 'maybe', and a third saying 'I dont care, just get me something that works' ... Chalk it off to insecurity.

Kurt
Dual Drive 580mmY axis, stock x/z axis, limit switches and .8c software

kurt6string
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by kurt6string » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:00 pm

The current status of ShapeIt is that I'm working on the communications channel enhancements. At this point it's got reliable comm's, have added ability to abort any pending transmissions, I added a 'grbl detector' that notices if the port actually has a controller at the other end, and it captures the version number. Currently working on adding 'status updates' to the comm channel (? command) so that I can parse, and keep track of the machine. After that will come the basics of gcode transmission/single-step. Working great so far, no known bugs, and I'll do my best to keep it that way. I'm going to spend as much time as required here, I don't want to revisit this part of code afterwards. I didn't get done on it this weekend because the Replicator 2 just arrived (yay!).
Dual Drive 580mmY axis, stock x/z axis, limit switches and .8c software

WillAdams
Posts: 8604
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:11 pm
Location: Pennsylvania --- south of the Turnpike, East of US-15
Contact:

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by WillAdams » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:55 pm

I think everyone would understand the financial angle --- I'm a big believer in opensource, but have no problem w/ pay versions of opensource apps being done by the developers.
Shapeoko 3XL #0006 w/ Carbide Compact Router w/0.125″ and ¼″ Carbide 3D precision collets

jsbannis
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:09 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by jsbannis » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:09 pm

I'm not an open source zealot by any means (I write software every day that isn't, and it pays the bills) and I tend to think that the FSF and GNU license are unrealistic and do more harm than good to open software development, preferring BSD style licenses. But that's philosophy and everyone has an opinion :) I think the "maker" movement prefers open source because it's free, transparent, and hackable, not necessarily because of philosophy.

When I write stuff in my own time, I license it with one of the "do whatever the heck you want" licenses, mostly because I don't care and am doing it as a hobby. It's also probably a lot easier / less legally hairy to get other people to help if you aren't making money. Another reason is github/google code and the like are only free if it's open source, and I like the tools but not enough to pay.

In regards to a paid shapeoko app, I wouldn't want to pay a large amount unless it was polished and rock solid. Given the limitations of grbl, you'd have to make sure the price was somewhere between free and the cost of setting up linuxCNC/mach3. Five to fifteen bucks? If I used the software I'd probably pay without thinking, just because I know how much of a time investment software is. That said, I'd probably have to fight urges to wish that it was all open source because of an incessant need to tinker with everything.
shapeoko #0057

kurt6string
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by kurt6string » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:50 pm

Thanks folks, I'll check back in every now and then as it progresses then. Slow but steady. Working on first pass of gcode sending/single-step and property pages for all the params. That will keep me busy awhile.
Dual Drive 580mmY axis, stock x/z axis, limit switches and .8c software

calica
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:13 am

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by calica » Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:20 am

Keep the UI discoupled from the machine control. That way you can add a LinuxCNC backend. I really like LinuxCNC vs grbl but the UI is lacking. Adding LinuxCNC support should be fairly simple if designed right.

kurt6string
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by kurt6string » Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:53 am

Good one, roger that, but not so easy in practice. Let me think about that awhile...Getting the decoupling right just seems to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow so many times. I hear you though. I'm thinking about it.

About 20 minutes has passed and I need to stick with stock Shapeoko for the time being. Doing what you suggest would exceed both my time and understanding budgets at this time. I've no experience at all with LinuxCNC yet, just got a Pi and would like to see if it can run it. But at this time I should stick with supporting the stock Shapeoko/Grbl combo because it's simpler. I'll keep the modularity in mind though and thanks for your suggestion. Keep'em coming please!
Dual Drive 580mmY axis, stock x/z axis, limit switches and .8c software

WillAdams
Posts: 8604
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:11 pm
Location: Pennsylvania --- south of the Turnpike, East of US-15
Contact:

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by WillAdams » Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:37 pm

Not sure if it's good working practice or no, but an ability to pause after a section, increase the machine depth and re-run it would be nice for working pieces w/ un-even surfaces.
Shapeoko 3XL #0006 w/ Carbide Compact Router w/0.125″ and ¼″ Carbide 3D precision collets

kurt6string
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: What features would a new Shapeoko app need?

Post by kurt6string » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:05 am

I can see myself needing those features. I just had to do the same thing with a Replicator 2 that got irritated in the middle of making something....
Dual Drive 580mmY axis, stock x/z axis, limit switches and .8c software

Post Reply