topic Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy in Fusion Manufacture Forum

Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jorge.diego.robles — Tue, 09 May 2017 09:11:44 GMT

Hi all.

I'm a member of Laserweb (https://github.com/LaserWeb), Open source lightweight solution for controlling DIY Laser and Mill machines.

We are interested on making a post processor engine compatible with F360 Post processor.

First of all, is that possible in licensing terms?

If so, whats the best way to achieve?

- Technically, we use JS as our main engine, is your JS engine open to replication?

- I've look at http://cam.autodesk.com/posts/reference/ Will it suffice for implementation?

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

LibertyMachine — Tue, 09 May 2017 09:18:51 GMT

Anyone can make a post processor for whatever application Fusion would be a solution. I've seen people control robots with cutting heads, home-brew CNC's, you name it!

The Generic Post Processors are excellent starting points to hack and slash your way to your custom post. They can be found HERE as well as on your computer when you download Fusion.

They are written in JavaScript, so you are well acquainted. But, here is an excellent resource should you have any questions:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-post-processor-forum/bd-p/218?nobounce

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jorge.diego.robles — Tue, 09 May 2017 09:26:45 GMT

Thanks, that is good news, but I let me be more concise, related to licensing:

Can we replicate the postprocessor engine spec (function hooks, parameters etc) to make our own postprocessor engine on Laserweb and use the post files developed for F360?

Regards,

Jorge.

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

LibertyMachine — Tue, 09 May 2017 09:29:42 GMT

Now that's a horse of a different color. I suspect the answer is "NO", as that entails technology that Autodesk has developed and/orpurchased. I cannot say for certain, so I will tag the Sr. Manager: @jeff.pek, what say you?

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jeff.pek — Tue, 09 May 2017 10:34:18 GMT

Interesting question.

I'm not sure it's much of an issue of intellectual property, but just probably not really a good idea to try to have a parallel post engine, and try to maintain compatibility with the Fusion post processor engine.

Probably a better approach would be to have a Fusion Post processor that would produce something with a format compatible with the LaserWeb, and then process that with your own post processor. This should be able to be chained, to make the experience more seamless.

Jeff

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jeff.pek — Tue, 09 May 2017 11:43:11 GMT

Thinking more about this, I don't think my suggestion really addresses what you're trying to do, and I think Seth's concern about this is valid -- the posts are part of our system, and having someone leverage them in some other system would be a problem, IP-wise.

Jeff

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jorge.diego.robles — Tue, 09 May 2017 11:53:16 GMT

Thanks Jeff.

We have no intent to conflict IP or F360 workflow, of course.

Rather, We are looking for an standard Spec of postprocessing, so anyone familiar with that spec (That could be Autodesk's one) could develop on any other compatible software.

If not, we (all) are condemned to "create yet another standard" 🙂

Regards,

Jorge.

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jeff.pek — Tue, 09 May 2017 11:57:19 GMT

I hear you. It's a noble goal.

Would be interested in @al.whatmough's take on this.

Jeff

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

al.whatmough — Tue, 09 May 2017 15:04:04 GMT

Honestly, I like the idea of our post spec becoming an Industry standard that others adopt. It means more sources of Quality post processors.

That said, I think I need to better understand your vision and what it is you are doing. I thought you said you are doing the Control software for Lasers and Mills. In my mind that consumes the output from the Post Processor.

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

Anonymous — Tue, 09 May 2017 15:39:54 GMT

LaserWeb (Download and play with it from http://github.com/LaserWeb/LaserWeb4-Binaries or test the Demo on0 http://laserweb.github.io/LaserWeb4) is an application that does:

- Connects to various open source firmwares, over various protocols (Grbl, Smoothieware, TinyG and Reprap, either via Native USB, USB to Serial, Wifi->Websockets, Ethernet->RawTCP, etc and functions as a Machine controller: IE, think Mach3/Pronterface/BCNC etc class of app for all the typical Open Source laser/mill/printer machines

- It also contains an onboard, very simple to use, low learning curve CAM - ie, users load SVG/DXF/BMP etc and we "convert to gcode" - this is the area we were considering whether the two projects (LW and F360) can't benefit each other: Our CAM generates gcode, but we also need to add magic spice to each flavour of firmware the machine is running. Ie we are implementing a post processor instead of just having a tonne of "if firmware=="thisone", then output gcode that looks like xyz" etc in the codebase.

The idea is (as someone mentioned above) that our community, when they create a post processor for US, that same PP can be used with F360 - since we have such a huge number of open source controllers and a very active community (and 37 developers, see https://github.com/orgs/LaserWeb/people) , F360 could benefit from these new post processors.
Conversely then, we could benefit from existing Post Processors.

We feel a post processor is just a descriptive format and therefore should be 100% open

(On the other end of the spectrum we may also want to write a plugin to "send to LaserWeb" that dumps a R12 Polyline DXF of a 2D projection, right into LW)

More about LaserWeb/CNCWeb:
Youtube: https://www.google.co.za/search?q=laserweb4+youtube&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2uDtkOPTAhUBIcAKHevZD-gQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=779
G+ Community (Go check the Show and Tell) https://plus.google.com/communities/115879488566665599508
Hackaday Articles: http://hackaday.com/?s=laserweb

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

al.whatmough — Tue, 09 May 2017 15:33:08 GMT

That makes more sense (now knowing you have your own CAM system)

I also agree - a world with universal post processors is better for everybody.

I will need to see what the legal and technical folks think about this.

From and Product management POV, I like the idea.

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jorge.diego.robles — Tue, 09 May 2017 15:36:10 GMT

Thank you Al!

Re: Post processor Spec for Open Source compatibiliy

jorge.diego.robles — Thu, 18 May 2017 07:33:51 GMT

Hello again!

@al.whatmough I don't want to mess around, I'm sure this takes time to process, but do we have any news? Thanks!