Bug fixes in ONE day!!! Astounding!! Thanks Tim!

Best Regards,
Julian (Fozzy The Bear)

 

Version 20 grouping is still not working properly. It does not generate gcode for tabs that are within nested groups. See attached example.

I would like to see a link to the previous versions somewhere so that in the event something is not working properly, we can go back to what last worked.

I thought I had my version 18 files stashed away, but cannot find them now that I need them. I just wanted to go back to my previous version to compare to see if it even worked in the previous version or if this is a new bug. Attached files Untitled.cnc (1 KB)Â Untitled.skp (56.7 KB)Â

 

We actually have something like that but I goofed and forgot to tell Mark to update the version before zipping them. If you look at your gcode file you will see a line that says "(Generated by PhlatscripT {trunk})". The trunk is the development version and should have been updated upon release to the correct version. If you would like to change it yourself you can modify line 18 in SU7Toolsphlatboyztools.rb by changing the word trunk to the correct version number.

 

Has anyone had trouble setting/changing the fold or centerline depth in v920? Previously, you did something like, select the fold line, right click, select fold, then you could enter the % of depth. Did this process move to another path? Thanks for all the hard work put into this script. It is awesome!!

 

KX-5, I think that is an area for improvement. Try hitting zero after you select the fold tool, then type the other two digits, something like 0, 1, then 2 should give you a 12 in the box...

 

Ahhh yes, but you are working around the problem....

I can do that too.

My point was, and this was a problem in the previous version as well, is that if you group a set of objects and then double click on that grouping so that you are now in edit mode of just that group and now you add a tab to the group, the tab does not stay with the group, it goes to the bottom of the heap.

Then, to make matters worse, it does not even produce a tab (which is present, but not grouped with its parents).

I believe in the old version, that the tabs did make it into the cut file but were done after the cut was already made effectively rendering them useless.

But since I don't have the old version now, I can't compare it.

 

Okay, I just generated some gcode with version 920 and was preparing to cut it when I noticed the Z axis was not working properly.

I checked the gcode and discovered the depth is nowhere close to the 1/4" which was called for. It is G1 Z -0.003 F 100 which in version 918 was G1 Z -0.350 F 100

The .350 was always overkill, but at least it cut foam... This value will not even penetrate the foam.

Is anyone cutting foam with this version or is it just me having problems on my end? Attached files testfile.cnc (34.7 KB)Â testfile.skp (3.1 MB)Â

 

No problem... I understand completely. I am a Flash programmer. Anything complex will have bugs. Just a fact of life.

Maybe it is not quite ready for release however, if it has bugs that are this serious.

It looks to me like it needs some more thorough testing by all of the beta testers. I have not even begun to pound on it and have come up with problems that impact the gcode pretty significantly.

Tim sent me a copy of version 918 which I have reverted back to. It just so happens I am replacing my controller board with a Gecko at this point in time and having two variables to deal with makes it harder to know whether it is my controller or the gcode that is misbehaving.

But I do appreciate the hard work that goes into putting out a new release of phlatscript. I'll just have to step back a bit till I get a chance to get more familiar with it.

 

Flash wrote: "I checked the gcode and discovered the depth is nowhere close to the 1/4" which was called for. It is G1 Z -0.003 F 100 which in version 918 was G1 Z -0.350 F 100"

I am having the same situation with the Z -0.003. My fold cut is -0.002. My 110% centerline cut is -0.003.

Also, I still don't see a way to change the fold or centerline depth after the initial adding of a fold or centerline.

 

I just gave it a work out and it works fine for me. Tested all kinds of different patterns and lines and tabs. I abused a piece of FF and it worked great. I really like the new tab feature where it magnifies as you put down the tabs. Have to get used to the new icons but no biggie

 

Apparently it is not just me.... KX5 just reported the same findings...

I simply took an existing skp file and republished the gcode after moving a couple of objects to its own print area. Basically, I wanted to recut a couple of parts that had previously been cut with version 918.

The code it produced for the Z axis was way off as described in the previous post.

I uploaded the su source for examination.

 

I like all the extra info in the phlatcode file. Think the Group Name will be very useful in the future. I also added the phatscript version, as per Tim's instructions, and that now shows up in my phlatcode.

Tim, I did find one minor bug with the sketchup file name. If there is a under score, everything before it is truncated. For example, for the file name "Myplane_version1.skp", what show up in the phlatcode is "version1.skp". The default cnc file name in the save dialog box is also given as "version1.skp", so that's where it is coming from.

-Kwok

 

I did not watch all of the show, didn't have time, but if that is the case it should be very prominently noted on the download page.

I litterly have hundreds of files which I use to cut planes and parts from. It is totally unacceptable for me to have to rework all of the those files! I use my Phlatprinter nearly every day of the week. I have spent hundreds of hours editing and testing those files.

This is tantamount to buying a new version of Windows and finding out you cannot open any of your email created on the previous version!

There should have been a migration path before you unleashed something like this on us!!

If there has to be actions that are that drastic, then there needs to be an easy way to switch between versions.

Until then, version 20 is not going back on my machine. :evil:

 

Sheesh, Flashsolutions, this is something you get for free, a little more tolerance is in order. Somehow I think think that you do your coding for a living and not for fun. They did it for fun, for our benefit.

 

Don't get me wrong.... I totally appreciate the efforts that everyone gives, especially in light of the fact that they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

And yes, I do my coding for a living. And yes, my clients expect perfection from me, that is what they are paying for.

Before I would ever consider releasing software that is not downward compatible, I would have had a migration plan in place.

I am not faulting the coding per se. I am trying to bring it to the attention of anyone who has legacy code that they will be unusable to use it without reworking it.

Any time something is no longer downward compatible it needs to be made very well known so that those of us who have large amounts of the stuff realize that the update may not be for us.

A very large notice on the download page would be nice!

Free or not, it is worthless code to me if it cannot coexist with my existing libraries in which I spent hours and hours creating.

The reason I purchased my Phlatprinter was partially because of the phlatscript. It is what makes or breaks this product.

If I seem a bit harsh about this, it is because I have an large investment of time and money in this not to mention recommendations I make to everyone I see.

The older version of the Phlatscript has served me well. Yes, bells and whistles and new features are great, but you still need to be able to process your existing legacy code.

I am sure it is not that difficult a task to be able to selectively choose which version of phlatscript to use. That would solve the legacy issue and allow everyone to have their new features and make me a happy camper.

 

Thanks, Kwok. This appears to be related to a ticket that existed in an older version of the script. I will look into it.

 

I think I would prefer a checkbox in a dialog or maybe something in the parameters menu?

Gasmasher, please don't take this personal. I have no doubt you are an excellent programmer. I don't always have the best of skills when it comes to trying to describe a problem without stepping on anyones toes. I just say whats on my mind.

Maybe everyone who was privy to the code before it was released just forgot to consider the impact that it would have on the existing codebase.

The forum contains many many user submitted skp files. A new user coming on board may very well download the latest version of Phlatscript and then go download any of the existing SU files and find that it does not work properly.

I am more concerned that there was insufficient warnings in the download section when it was a known fact that the new code was not backward compatible.

How are we to manage existing source when it is no longer compatible with the latest version of the phlatscript?

Personally, I just do not think the code should have been released until these issues had been considered and a solution was in place to accommodate them. While, reworking the existing SU files may seem to be viable option, it is not an easy one when you consider the quantity of existing code that is out there.

 

I don't really want to be involved at this level of decision making, but I feel drawn in... so please do not take this personal, I just seek a fuller understanding of the problem.

Flash exactly what "codebase" are you talking about? Every original generated g-code file will still work with the pp. In the event that you need to change the original skp file, for an update to a part for instance, it would take a VERY painstakingly slow process to delete the original phlatedges that v9.18 created. From there you have to go back and reapply the script, re-group, and then regenerate the code. Mind the fact that in most cases it takes longer to delete the old phlatedges then it would to just re-do the entire sheet, and I work with advanced models...

The new script has an eraser feature that will quickly delete the phlatedges! This works two fold in both updating models and keeping me from having to keep two separate files of each model I ever made up until this point. Before this release I had to keep two skp files for each thing I drew, one for a virgin model, the other for one that was scripted. Since it was so difficult to get rid of the edges after they were applied, and even when you could it would still leave fold lines that were even harder to work around...

Now I would see a problem if the eraser tool did not delete old edges, but I have not had a problem with that to submit as a bug report.

Also from my perspective, it would have been really nice to have every single issue worked out, but I felt that the benefits of release outweighed the drawbacks. Attached files Phlatboyz_v0.918.zip (200.5 KB)Â