Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes

deckingman

@dc42 I say again, from a user's point of view, it would be better if there was different firmware versions for (subtractive) CNC machines and (additive) 3DPrinters, rather than this "one size fits all" approach. Life would be much better if we had firmware that did one thing well, without the unnecessary "features" for other machine types and the constant need to reconfigure our machines every time the firmware gets updated. Backwards compatibility is becoming more and more of a nightmare.

jay_s_uk

@deckingman except for machines that incorporate both. then you'd be on the 3 firmware versions.

deckingman

@jay_s_uk said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

@deckingman except for machines that incorporate both. then you'd be on the 3 firmware versions.

So what? From a user's perspective, that would still be better. Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that Duet can't/won't employ more people or allow more contributors to manage the firmware. So the management of the firmware is being done to accommodate the limited resources available and to hell with the fact that it's a complete PITA for end users.

dc42

@deckingman said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

So what? From a user's perspective, that would still be better.

There are at least two machines using RRF with both additive and subtractive capabilities used within a single job. So a single firmware needs to support both.

@deckingman said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that Duet can't/won't employ more people...

If we charged much higher industrial-level prices for Duets instead of the present prices, and didn't open source the designs and the firmware, then we could do that.

deckingman

@dc42 said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

@deckingman said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that Duet can't/won't employ more people...

If we charged much higher industrial-level prices for Duets instead of the present prices, and didn't open source the designs and the firmware, then we could do that.

Yup. It's your choice. You choose to make and sell a few boards which just about cover very limited R&D resources, while giving away the designs to cloners who will always be able to undercut you on price, because they don't have any R&D costs to recoup (in fact, you even support those cloners by giving them your firmware for nothing and spending time providing support for them on these forums). Or, you could choose not to share the design, sell very many more boards (without having to increase the cost) which in turn would fund the resources needed to support the product in a more customer focused and user friendly way.

Or another way of looking at it, could be that happy customers spread the word which leads to increased sales, which lead to more profit, which can fund more R&D. The converse is true of unhappy customers.

T3P3Tony

@deckingman I don't want this to degenerate into an open source/closed source thread but it is important to note:

RRF was originally written by Adrian Bowyer. I am not sure if any of that original code exists any more in RRF 3.3, it has gradually been extended and re-written. None the less the whole project is licensed GPL. If we wanted to make a closed source firmware we would need to start from scratch. (edited to add, the current firmware has contributions for people outside the core Duet team who probably would not (or more likely could not) have contributed if we did not publish the source)
Yes we do have cloners, would there be fewer clones on the market if we did not release information about our boards? Possibly but given the proliferation of clones on non opensource designs, that's not a given.

T3P3Tony

Bringing it back on topic. G10 is not changing in RRF 3.3. At some, TBD, point in the future (possibly RRF 4?) the use of G10 for temperature settings (as opposed to the older, CNC, use for tool offsets) will be removed. Before that there will no doubt be many more discussions about when and why. A new tool parameter ( Spindle RPM) has been added to M568 and we took the opportunity to add other tool related settings there rather than trying to shoehorn another parameter into the already overloaded G10. If you are not using a spindle you can ignore all this for now. If you are using a spindle, there is now a parameter to set the RPM.

deckingman

@T3P3Tony That's good to know. Will you be amending the documentation which currently states quote "Note that this use of G10 is deprecated in RRF 3.3beta2 and will be removed in a later version. Use M568 instead." ?

BTW, much of this animosity could be avoided if users are consulted beforehand. Or at the very least, a statement setting out the reason why something has to be changed along with possible alternative ways to achieve that change.

Simply announcing a fundamental change to the firmware, which might require users to carry out significant changes to their machine configuration files, without any consultation or input from those users, is bound to get people's back's up (well it does me). People will in general accept change if the reasons for that change are given, rather than it being imposed upon them by diktat.

jrwaters2

@T3P3Tony said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

M568

Thanks - will the offsets also be added to M568? That was the piece I was asking about.

T3P3Tony

@deckingman

@deckingman said in Regarding upcoming RepRapFirmware 3.3beta2 G10 M568 changes:

Will you be amending the documentation which currently states quote "Note that this use of G10 is deprecated in RRF 3.3beta2 and will be removed in a later version. Use M568 instead." ?

yep have done so

BTW, much of this animosity could be avoided if users are consulted beforehand. Or at the very least, a statement setting out the reason why something has to be changed along with possible alternative ways to achieve that change.
Simply announcing a fundamental change to the firmware, which might require users to carry out significant changes to their machine configuration files, without any consultation or input from those users, is bound to get people's back's up (well it does me). People will in general accept change if the reasons for that change are given, rather than it being imposed upon them by diktat.

Agreed. We try to do so, this one slipped through the net!

T3P3Tony

@jrwaters2 Not in my understanding of the changes. Tool offsets should be G10 L1 ...

jrwaters2

Thanks @deckingman