Maybe it's time to consider dropping the use of G-code and STL for additive manufacturing?
Why not just go CAD to AMF? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_Manufacturing_File_Format And then just import AMF right into the interpreter and skip using G-code. The problem with having only one small nozzle (besides having only one small nozzle) is that it has to travel over the entire part. It's the same for only one laser using SLA so the G-code for motion is large and if the part has lots of on/off for deposition the G-code gets even larger. It works right now on 3-axis glue guns with only one or two nozzles and one or two materials. It gets further complicated if printheads or a micro-valve array is used since they might only have 25um nozzles and interlace hundreds or thousands of them with multiple materials. On 07/18/2013 10:57 AM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > > > background: I am considering alternative internal representations > of G-code and want to get a handle on the problem size > Question: Would you design something in today's world that had any > sort of hard-coded limit (other than maybe native memory size)? > > If so, why? > > I envision a future where gcode files are split into 1 Gig chunks > because Microsoft^H LinuxCNC can't handle files bigger than that(*). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
