Ok, I see what you are doing. More moments... 1) All those saying the interface needs to be in Windows. No. It just needs to be exportable. The display needs to be NOT linked physically to the computer that turns the motors. People then can run the display where they like. Maybe on a tablet. Maybe on a MacBook. Maybe on a Windows "surface" machine
2) Microsoft said this is the LAST version of windows. "10" is it. I would not tie the long tern success of my business to Windows. It will be gone in 10 years. OK not "gone" but VERY DIFFERENT. already we see things like Windows 10S that can't run software not in the store. Already we see Microsoft moving to a rental model with other software and we see cloud based services. This is what is coming. after Windows. So please re-read #1above. See it flexible, display decoupled and goes just "wherever". Very, veery soon computers will by cloud connected devices and software will be a subscription service and no one but ultra-geeks will have what we call "windows PC towers". 3) You are going to need to build a controller that you can directly plug motors into. It is going to have to be a truly turn-key system, plug in (1) Ethernet, (2) motors and (3) AC power and that's it, end user assembly is just four wires.. If you required more from the end user you will waste endless $$$$ paying you army of technical support specialists to debug poor filter connections. You want to sell a closed box 4) if the user has to know that there is an operating system inside, it is to hard to use. My Ink jet printer runs Linux inside but very few users know this. This is the way it should be. 5) your controller is self documenting and configures using a WEB BROWSER. The user un-boxes your controller plugs in the AC power and Ethernet then points the borrowers of his PC, Mac or iPhone to the controller and see a welcome page. Many WiFi routers work like this. The use some kind of "zero-conf" protocol like UPnP multicast DNs or.... All the documents are stored in the web server that runs on the controller. 6) Giving an end use a text edit and access o the file system is a technical service disaster. User can't edit file inside their cable box but the cable box almost certainly runs Linux. It does fine hiding that there is Linux inside. 7) how does user get his g-code to the machine? Easy: How does user print a PDF file? There is no complex file download or moving SD cards or networks. He just clicks "print". Same here. Possible the use drags and drops a code file on the mill icon. Don't let him have access to the file system, FTP or NFS. 8) include built-in screen sharing and SSH so they your technical support people can debug user issues without an expensive RMA process. Use extensive built-in diagnostics, lots on instrumentation on the hardware. 9) one more feature request. web cam. I want to be able to look at the machine(s) and see them cut metal from the back seat of a self-driving Uber car. Lastly what is the market? Can you sell enough of these? It is hard for me to see how you could pay the rent even if you sold 100 units a month. Hopefully you work of the business case ahead of time. On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Alexander Rössler < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thank you for your input. > > I'm aware of Tormach, they are doing pretty good stuff and I know their > system very well. And no, I don't want to go into the direction of > becoming a mill manufacturer. > > So your suggestion two is what I'm currently researching. In my opinion > either a low-end x86 or a high-end aarch64 CPU should do the trick. On > the other hand some customers may prefer Windows to run their CAD/CAM > software, so running the control software on a low-end ARM + FPGA and > the UI on the Windows machine might be an option. > > But what I'm really aiming for here is all in one OEM solution. From > what I have seen, there are pretty good alternative systems in the > market, however, complete control systems start at 1000$ minimum, more > realistically 10.000$. > > I have several customers that sell machines way below this price range > and for them these solutions is just too expensive. So what I would offer > is a scal-able solution, including a cheap ARM based controller with a > basic GUI for the low-end machines and a fully supported fancy GUI 10k+$ > system the high-end machines. > > I'm not sure if this makes, but that's what I'm trying to figure out > now. > > Cheers, > Alex > > Chris Albertson writes: > > > If it is going to be "turn key" you are going to have to include the mill > > or printer. and design a far better un=ser interface. Then if you sell > > it you will need technical support to back the product. > > > > This business model (selling MK/LinuxCNC preinstall on a milling machine > > and backing the entire system with support) work. Tormach is doing > exactly > > this. Before you go off n the same direction you should see what they > are > > doing. https://www.tormach.com > > > > If you don't want to sell truly end to end turn key systems and want to > > stop with the CNC controller then do just that build the entire > controller, > > computer, stopper or servo drivers, monitor and tech screen, power > supplies > > and all. With software preloaded. > > > > The user should not know if the coper is ARM or in intel i7. All he sees > > is the control screen > > > > Do you have TV setup cable box at home? It almost certainly runs Linux > > inside. But you never see it and don't even have to know what OS it > runs. > > The milling machine controller should be like that. The user does not > know > > what OS is installed. (See the above link, they do this., so yes it can > > be one and you can make money doing it.) > > > > How to design this? I'd build a large PCB that has on it a Mesa-ike > FPGA, > > a bunch of opts-isolators and connectors and then a Pi3 plugs into it and > > acts as a compute module and the entire thing goes in a metal box with an > > LCD tech screen and some switches on top of the box facing the user. You > > sell closed up metal boxes. Here is a video (made by someone we might > > know. Tanks you Dean) https://youtu.be/7uQYPXgA6WU > > > > I would not build it this way. I think easier to just use a low-end, > Intel > > X86 based mainboard. With better GPU, faster networking and faster USB. > > I do like the LCD touch screen and the way the completely enclosed metal > > box keeps metal chip out as contains any electrical noise > > > > I also think if you are selling controllers and you are going to have to > > offer warranty and technical support you REALLY want to control the > entire > > device including the enclose and the power supplies and you want a TON of > > built-in test. > > > > one other things I would 100% recommend is a Internet convection that > cabe > > use so that your technical start can remotely diagnose problems. The > last > > thing you need are RMA returns because a metal chip landed under a key > on a > > keyboard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Alexander Rössler < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> I'm wondering if you or anyone you know would be interested in a turnkey > >> solution based on Machinekit. > >> > >> From what I have seen so far, it looks like a lot people are struggling > >> with the basics of getting Machinekit up and running. > >> > >> Even if you buy a well supported BBB cape and you are lucky to get the > >> Machinekit image running in one try, you still need to setup Machinekit > >> for your particular machine. Right now, you will not get around basic > >> Linux skills to do this. > >> > >> I was thinking about creating a Mach3 alike solution based on > >> Machinekit. Not including the bad parts of Mach3, but the good ones like > >> proper (runtime) configuration wizards and an easily re-configurable UI. > >> > >> However, I don't think it's possible to create such a system just on the > >> side, because if you already know Machinekit in and out, then you just > >> don't have the incentive to build it. Also I don't think it's > >> financially possible to fund such a thing just by selling electronics > >> with Machinekit support at the marginal production costs, or else we > >> would have already seen it. > >> > >> So I wonder if you would be willing to pay more for a turnkey Machinekit > >> solution that is easy to setup, easy to use and simply works. > >> > >> I personally don't like the idea of hiding the costs for creating such > >> system in the final costs of the electronics. So this would be mean > paying > >> for > >> extra software on top of Machinekit. > >> > >> All in all, this would come down to the idea of using Machinekit just > >> because it's gratis or because it's great. In my opinion, if you are > >> just looking for a cheap solution, then you might be better of with grbl > >> anyway. > >> > >> From what I have seen so far, there is nothing that fills this > >> market. Being easy to use and user friendly, being scale-able from a 7$ > >> ARM computer up to a high end x86 machine and with good commercial > >> support. > >> > >> I really would like to invest more time into improving Machinekit and in > >> my opinion being a commercial baker of an open source project is the > >> most efficient way to do this. > >> > >> For you as a community member this would mean more work being put into > >> improving Machinekit, for you as potential commercial user of Machinekit > >> this would mean less development costs and better support, for me this > >> would mean I can spend more time doing what I like. Sounds like a win, > >> win, win situation, doesn't it? > >> > >> Please let me know what you think. If you don't want to respond > >> publicly, feel free to shoot me a PM. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Alexander > >> > >> -- > >> website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io > github: > >> https://github.com/machinekit > >> --- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Machinekit" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >> email to [email protected]. > >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/machinekit. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> > > > -- > Alexander Rössler > HMI Expert at Rössler Systems > Tel: +43 680 1348338 > Web: https://roessler.systems > Blog: https://machinekoder.com > [email protected] > Lebnergasse 1/7/7 > 1210 Wien - Austria > ATU72251528 > -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California -- website: http://www.machinekit.io blog: http://blog.machinekit.io github: https://github.com/machinekit --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Machinekit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/machinekit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
