bdring wrote:That is pretty cool Tim, how is the cut speed affected?
Cut speed is definitely slower. However, given that the mA meter is roughly half when PPI is turned on, I don't think it is taking twice as long to cut.
I was concerned about this when I first started the tests. As I think about it more, I believe the PPI functionality is more about quality than speed. For instance, I can now cut paper with virtually no charring on the edges. That was basically impossible before. Cutting craft plywood, the results are much better than without it, but it does take more time or power to cut through.
I am going to be doing a longer blog with lots of tests and results and recommendations. Time for doing it is killing me right now, but hope to get it very soon. Again, I welcome any useful input from others who try it and discover what works well, what doesn't, and what doesn't really matter. Like any other tool, it will have it's place. I just want to discover and document where the place is.
As for the comments re: placement of the control. True, the Manufacturer's Parameters is not the ideal spot for the control. Ideally, in a future version, it will be part of the layer setup, so it can be turned on and off and set on a layer-by-layer basis.
What many may not realize is:
1. The original request for PPI was submitted to LO on 11/09/2011 by Gadroc.
2. At that time, Marco was not familiar with the PPI concept.
3. Over the next 48 hours or so, I, along with Engineerable, and others provided some basic background as reference.
4. With that, Marco went to the programmer and asked that he look into it.
5. The programmer was also not familiar with PPI, but was willing to investigate the possibility.
6. The programmer had to complete other more pressing requirements and requests before he could work on it.
6. Now, in early March, we actually have a working PPI model For anyone not aware of it, that is incredibly fast for any piece of commercial software.
I have been developing software professionally for 36 years. I will tell you that no programmer knows everything about every industry for which he/she develops software. We all make assumptions - sometimes incorrectly.
In this case, the programmer is not a laser user. As such, he probably thought of the PPI as being more similar to OEM settings for tube pulse frequency or other configuration elements, rather than user-oriented production job variables.
Both Marco and the programmer have been very receptive to ideas for improving both the quality and the functionality of the controller. It is that cooperative attitude that will ensure a continued flow of "newness" that is not happening on any other controllers out there.
That cooperative attitude needs to extend to us, as well. We can cooperate by being willing to offer suggestions for new features and provide feed back on their implementation and usefulness to us. As a programmer, I always appreciated it when users provided the feedback in a three-step approach:
1. Tell me what is correct.
2. Tell me what can be improved (and how - not just "I don't like the way you did it.")
3. Tell me you appreciate the current effort and encourage me to continue with that.
I find it fascinating that here, on BuildLog.net, nearly everyone employs that strategy toward Bart - for the Laser 2x and the ORD, and everything else that comes out of this site. But when it comes to the efforts of other commercial vendors, the membership seems to want to see who can complain the loudest.
I built Laser 2x #1. Was it perfect - no way. Does it work - incredibly well. Is today's version better - absolutely. Would I have liked to had everything perfect before I started - sure. But I would rather be using it, with a few imperfections, than be waiting for that day to come. I have over 1000 hours on the laser in the year since I built it. That's 1000+ hours of fun, learning, and earning that I would have missed out on.
In the end, we each have our choice of either...
being part of the creative process, including being open the quirks that usually accompany "newness",
or we can wait (possibly forever) for someone to magically get it perfect the first time.
For me, enjoying the benefits of the former seems so much more fun and useful than the latter.
Regardless of what future improvement the PPI sees, I will use it, in whatever state it is, when appropriate for the jobs that it provides me some advantage.