What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Having problems with or questions about SheetCam? Post them here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

I'm working on getting ready for the new stable release and I'm looking for anything that needs cleaning up. I'm looking for bugs, awkward functionality or missing features. Basically anything that interferes with your workflow.
User avatar
djreiswig
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:47 am
Location: SE Nebraska

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by djreiswig »

I always thought it was weird how Save asks you for a filename if you've already previously saved the file. It works like what most programs call Save As. I know it's a safety feature, but I find it slightly annoying.
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

Sorry, I thought I replied to this. It should only ask you when you are closing SheetCam. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to remove this. It gives you a last chance to change your mind on the name. Removing it could also catch out people who now expect this behaviour.
David_Lelen01
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:18 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by David_Lelen01 »

Oh you asked for it this time Les lol. I've been trying to wait until you got most of the bugs worked out before i bugged you with my up to date wish-list, but since you asked lol... I'll keep this list just to bugs and what i expect would be easy to implement features...

Bugs:
1) Default start point placement should be such that machine does not have to travel over a contour that has already been cut to move to the next contour. Currently it is on the wrong side. I have brought this up before here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8288

2) Leadins/ start points are being placed such that the start point interferes with other parts. The "start point placement clearance" does not appear to have any affect on placement of start points.

3) Individual start point properties negative overcut value does nothing. Operation overcut must be negative for negative overcuts to work. I think i have brought this up before too, but do not see the post at the moment.

4) "Break up manually nested parts" generates redundant names. (ex. Part of Part of [part name])

Improvements:
1)Add length specification box to internal corner overcut option in operations dialog.

2)Add manual input box for "Loop corners" Size. Current is slider bar that appears to be dependent on kerf width. Sometimes this is too small for the operation i use.

3)Add scale box to status bar near rotation box.

4)Select preferred start point placement somewhere in options. (ex. midpoint of line, midpoint of arc, corner)

5)Select multiple parts in parts tree using shift key. This is something i am very used to being able to do in every application on windows and is honestly just annoying that i cant shift-select parts.

6)Shape tab does not remember last setting of tab width. I have to drag it out so i can see everything every time.

7) Shape dialog box does not remember last setting for window size. I have to drag it larger each time.

8)Add ability to skip to a specific line/time in simulation tab.

9) Display the current line of code being executed in simulation tab.

10) Is there any possible way you could hide a config file somewhere or make something somewhere that i could add custom fields to the job report dialog box. The "Notes" box was wonderful, but I still really want a "Customer" box and a "File Name" box but i understand this is probably useless to 99.9% of everyone else here so i am just going to ask very nicely pretty please.

And finally this last one we have discussed before and i know you said it would be very difficult to implement, but the "break up manually nested drawing" makes a line that is coincident with the edges of a part as a separate part. Sometimes it makes it a separate part and sometimes it leaves it inside the part, kinda hit or miss. This is just super annoying because every time i nest something with etch lines i have to modify each and every line so that it is not coincident with the edge of the part. This is just excessively time consuming.



Sorry this is such a list, hope you dont hate me now... Thanks for all of your amazing and hard work for such a wonderful program!!
User avatar
djreiswig
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:47 am
Location: SE Nebraska

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by djreiswig »

Les Newell wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:27 pm Sorry, I thought I replied to this. It should only ask you when you are closing SheetCam. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to remove this. It gives you a last chance to change your mind on the name. Removing it could also catch out people who now expect this behaviour.
I think the expected behavior should be to ask if you want to save the job on exit if you have made changes since your last save. In that case if you say yes, then save as the current name. If it's an unsaved job, then prompt for the filename. Also display a cancel button that would stop exiting and also give you the ability to choose save as from the file menu and save as a different filename. That is how most programs I use work.
David_Lelen01
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:18 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by David_Lelen01 »

I think the expected behavior should be to ask if you want to save the job on exit if you have made changes since your last save. In that case if you say yes, then save as the current name. If it's an unsaved job, then prompt for the filename. Also display a cancel button that would stop exiting and also give you the ability to choose save as from the file menu and save as a different filename. That is how most programs I use work.
I agree with djreiswig... That is the behavior with other programs i am used to as well.
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

David_Lelen01 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:53 pm Oh you asked for it this time Les lol.
No worries. I would have been disappointed if you hadn't said anything.
I'm mostly looking for stuff that's quick to implent so that rules out most of these suggestions. However I'll see what I can do.
1) Default start point placement should be such that machine does not have to travel over a contour that has already been cut to move to the next contour. Currently it is on the wrong side. I have brought this up before here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8288
Yeah, that's most definitely not in the quick fix department. I don't think this will be ready for the new stable in January.
2) Leadins/ start points are being placed such that the start point interferes with other parts. The "start point placement clearance" does not appear to have any affect on placement of start points.
Do you mean leadins on one part interfere with another part? Again that has a lot of nasty issues. What happens when you have duplicates? Duplicates are a carbon copy of the original part so if you move the start point on one you move it on all.
3) Individual start point properties negative overcut value does nothing. Operation overcut must be negative for negative overcuts to work. I think i have brought this up before too, but do not see the post at the moment.
Yup, there is definitely something wrong there. The preview when in start point mode shows the correct spacing but the tool paths are wrong.
4) "Break up manually nested parts" generates redundant names. (ex. Part of Part of [part name])
Huh, I never noticed that. I'll fix it.
1)Add length specification box to internal corner overcut option in operations dialog.
Why do you want to do that? Currently it calculates the minimum cut for a square corner to fit into. Is this not enough when laser cutting?
2)Add manual input box for "Loop corners" Size. Current is slider bar that appears to be dependent on kerf width. Sometimes this is too small for the operation i use.
Hmm, I didn't think about lasers with a really thin kerf. The slider keeps it simple. What sort of loop size would you normally aim for?
3)Add scale box to status bar near rotation box.
Way back in the mists of time the original SheetCam had this. It caused so many headaches I quietly removed it when I wrote TNG. I could maybe add a scale option in the parts tree. Scaling would be one-way. For instance if you scale your part to 50% the only way to return it to full size would be to scale 200%. You couldn't just reset it to 100%.
4)Select preferred start point placement somewhere in options. (ex. midpoint of line, midpoint of arc, corner)
The current start point placement is based on internal rules that score different positions depending on their suitability. For instance a tight inside corner would get a very low score. The position with the highest score wins. I'll look into making that scoring tuneable and adding issue #1 into the mix. I doubt if it will be soon though.
5)Select multiple parts in parts tree using shift key. This is something i am very used to being able to do in every application on windows and is honestly just annoying that i cant shift-select parts.
That should work. If you try you can see the group get selected then it gets deselected again. I'll look into what is going on there.
6)Shape tab does not remember last setting of tab width. I have to drag it out so i can see everything every time.
I vaguely remember a problem with making it remember the size. I'll investigate further.
7) Shape dialog box does not remember last setting for window size. I have to drag it larger each time.
I should be able to fix that.
8)Add ability to skip to a specific line/time in simulation tab.
Hmm, I can see that being useful. I'll have to look into it. Space is limited on these little side widows so I need to think on a compact and intuitive way of doing this.
9) Display the current line of code being executed in simulation tab.
Simulation does not use the post processed code. For that to work you'd have to have a reverse post processor to match every post processor. Instead sim uses it's own internal code format which is not related to G-code. It could display this code but it wouldn't be very useful.
10) Is there any possible way you could hide a config file somewhere or make something somewhere that i could add custom fields to the job report dialog box. The "Notes" box was wonderful, but I still really want a "Customer" box and a "File Name" box but i understand this is probably useless to 99.9% of everyone else here so i am just going to ask very nicely pretty please.
Job reports are an ugly kludge. The hacked up HTML is confusing to work with. I need to totally rethink reports, which is one reason why I don't really want to mess with it too much at the moment. Maybe I should look into using XSLT instead. Mind you XSLT can be pretty impenetrable as well.
And finally this last one we have discussed before and i know you said it would be very difficult to implement, but the "break up manually nested drawing" makes a line that is coincident with the edges of a part as a separate part. Sometimes it makes it a separate part and sometimes it leaves it inside the part, kinda hit or miss. This is just super annoying because every time i nest something with etch lines i have to modify each and every line so that it is not coincident with the edge of the part. This is just excessively time consuming.
Yeah, this is remarkably difficult to implement reliably.
Sorry this is such a list, hope you dont hate me now... Thanks for all of your amazing and hard work for such a wonderful program!!
Thanks for compiling the list. I much prefer this to silence. These days I don't spend much time actually running machines. It's so easy to lose touch with what is actually useful.
David_Lelen01
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:18 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by David_Lelen01 »

No worries. I would have been disappointed if you hadn't said anything.
I'm mostly looking for stuff that's quick to implent so that rules out most of these suggestions. However I'll see what I can do.
Well im glad to hear i didn't disappoint you lol. I appreciate your time considering these suggestions.
Yeah, that's most definitely not in the quick fix department. I don't think this will be ready for the new stable in January.
I see... i suppose it has to do with the core methods sheetcam works from. Still i would recommend placing this at a high priority in the list, even if its not to be in a stable release. I would rarely need the negative overcuts i have mentioned if this problem did not exist. As a result, i use a negative overcut on nearly every inside contour on the laser. Then we have to spend significant manhours punching out the internal cuts. It's a real production killer for us. I actually spent the time to go in and manually move almost 1000 start points to the other side and did not use a negative overcut to make a small tab and it worked absolutely flawlessly.
Do you mean leadins on one part interfere with another part? Again that has a lot of nasty issues. What happens when you have duplicates? Duplicates are a carbon copy of the original part so if you move the start point on one you move it on all.
Yes, this is most notable after breaking up manually nested drawings. They dont interfere when the nest is one part, though the start point clearance still seems to have no effect. But after breaking up they often interfere.
Why do you want to do that? Currently it calculates the minimum cut for a square corner to fit into. Is this not enough when laser cutting?
It's not so much an issue with the laser as it is with the waterjet and plasma. The internal overcut usually ends up being too deep. I actually want to slightly reduce it in some circumstances. Most recently was jetting a brake disk with internal splines. The depth of the internal cut would have compromised the strength of the part around the splines, though i still needed a slight internal cut to get a sharp corner. I actually never have to use this with the laser because the kerf is only on average 0.006". The plasma however has a kerf up to .185"
Hmm, I didn't think about lasers with a really thin kerf. The slider keeps it simple. What sort of loop size would you normally aim for?
Again, this one is not so much for the laser, but the plasma. I have two different methods and posts for programing the plasma. One is to let sheetcam program the kerf width and take care of everything. But a couple of our plasma operators prefer to program the kerf on the machine interface(understandably so for when parts need a close tolerance they can edit it on the machine and they also like to cut with amperages and tips other than the standard recommended for a given size plate) so i have sheetcam program a cutpath with a 0.001" kerf. Thus with the slider based on kerf, it is entirely too small for the actual kerf width of 0.120".
Way back in the mists of time the original SheetCam had this. It caused so many headaches I quietly removed it when I wrote TNG. I could maybe add a scale option in the parts tree. Scaling would be one-way. For instance if you scale your part to 50% the only way to return it to full size would be to scale 200%. You couldn't just reset it to 100%.
I think that would be useful. I can understand how it could be problematic. I am totally fine with scaling being one way, that wont bother me at all. I would just prefer to not have to reimport a part in order to be able to change the scale.
Hmm, I can see that being useful. I'll have to look into it. Space is limited on these little side widows so I need to think on a compact and intuitive way of doing this.
Yes, i find myself needing to do that quite frequently, especially on long runtime parts.
Simulation does not use the post processed code. For that to work you'd have to have a reverse post processor to match every post processor. Instead sim uses it's own internal code format which is not related to G-code. It could display this code but it wouldn't be very useful.
Okay, no big deal on that one then, it was still on my list from when i was developing the posts for our machines. I didnt realize simulation didnt use the actual machine post.
Job reports are an ugly kludge. The hacked up HTML is confusing to work with. I need to totally rethink reports, which is one reason why I don't really want to mess with it too much at the moment. Maybe I should look into using XSLT instead. Mind you XSLT can be pretty impenetrable as well.
Okay, i'll be patient on the reports for a while. We have talked lately about the html issues anyways. The html is definately a mind****.
Yeah, this is remarkably difficult to implement reliably.
Understandably so... though i really hope it can be worked out one day. It really is a big time eater. and our fab shop really loves the etched bend lines on parts. Thought :idea: ...... If sheetcam already places the line correctly on the part if it is completely internal, could you not offset the end points towards the center of the line by or 0.0001" or even 0.00001" and recalculate? No realistic application of sheetcam has a machining tolerance that small and computers can easily calculate down to 6 decimals, often much further. Would this not be a start on the right path?
Thanks for compiling the list. I much prefer this to silence. These days I don't spend much time actually running machines. It's so easy to lose touch with what is actually useful.
Any time Les! Whenever you want feedback, just ask. I can always come up with something. It may just not always be useful to the other 99.99% of the community :lol:
David_Lelen01
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:18 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by David_Lelen01 »

Here's another thought i just had.... on the drawing import dialog box, you have a lot of nice options for import placement, but how about just a box where user could type in specific coordinates. I know now that we can do that in the status bar, just would save a step if we could specify rotation and placement point in the import dialog. That's just what im so used to from every CAD package that i use.
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

That makes sense. I'll stick it in the 'needs to be done' list.
DenkBrettl
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by DenkBrettl »

The thing that I find most inconvienient so far is that one can not easily combine path rules. I'd love to set up a few rules like "Be slow on arcs", "THX off before end", "Set speed to 50%" and then apply some of these in combination. The way the workflow is now I need to basically create combinations of the above and that gets messy quickly.
mancavedweller
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:53 am

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by mancavedweller »

"Break Up Manually Nested Drawing" changes the cut order.

I prefer to nest parts in Coreldraw instead of in Sheetcam, so I'll export the nested parts from CD as a single file, and import into Sheetcam as a single part.

I create any needed layers and operations, place start positions and create the cut sequence. If I then do "Break Up Manually Nested Drawing" the cut sequence gets changed.

Don't know if that's an easy or hard one to fix.
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

DenkBrettl wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:15 pm The thing that I find most inconvienient so far is that one can not easily combine path rules.
Hmm, interesting. I expected most people would create a few standard rules that cover the majority of applications. Why do you need to mix and match rules that much?
SeanP
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 am

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by SeanP »

mancavedweller wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:54 pm "Break Up Manually Nested Drawing" changes the cut order.
I create any needed layers and operations, place start positions and create the cut sequence. If I then do "Break Up Manually Nested Drawing" the cut sequence gets changed.
Also start points move as well when breaking up, be good if you could set start points in the nest.
User avatar
Les Newell
Site Admin
Posts: 3660
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: What bugs you the most in SheetCam?

Post by Les Newell »

mancavedweller wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:54 pm "Break Up Manually Nested Drawing" changes the cut order.
I prefer to nest parts in Coreldraw instead of in Sheetcam, so I'll export the nested parts from CD as a single file, and import into Sheetcam as a single part.
I'm curious - why do you need to break up the drawing if you nested it in Corel?
Post Reply