Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven VS gcodepreview

As a visual person (traditionally trained as a graphic artist), I've wanted this sort of thing for a long while, and I've been trying to use it for 3D.

Surprisingly, there are multiple specialized tools for this:

- https://www.blockscad3d.com --- an adaptation of Google's Blockly to OpenSCAD

- https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor --- wires and nodes, it has the advantage of exposing _all_ of OpenSCAD's commands (the above has a subset)

- https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven --- a module for using PythonOCC in Ryven --- when I finally succeeded, I found the language inscrutable, even when provided w/ quite nice examples (definitely a failing on my part, not that of the tool)

- https://github.com/graphscad/graphscad --- it took a long while for the source code for this to be made available, and for a while it had compatibility problems (why was "cube" redefined?) --- probably defunct for political reasons, it had some interesting ideas, in particular the ability to have custom icons for modules

- https://www.nodebox.net --- if memory serves I got hung up by not easily being able to do 3D, and when doing 2D having precision problems (or maybe that was Processing.org)

and I've been using these tools to make various things:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/3d-project

(and maybe eventually I'll finish something)

The problem I've been running into is there doesn't seem to be an answer to the question:

"What does an algorithm look like?"

I recently had occasion to mention Herman Hesse's _The Glass Bead Game_ (also published as _Magister Ludi_) and I'll bring it up again --- what is a meaningful graphical representation of a program?

The Drakon folks argued that there should be one true path but that's not really communicative and I would note that if this was a simple thing it wouldn't be decades since I last saw a physical Flowcharting Template:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/flo...

(and it's pretty rare to even see a well-done electronic drawing of a flowchart since Visio made its splash and vanished into the bowels of Microsoft)

The main problem seems to be one of expressiveness not scaling up well, hence:

https://blueprintsfromhell.tumblr.com/

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Presumably, one doesn't want to define modules/variables unnecessarily --- but the question becomes where is that boundary?

If you define too many, then you're back to the "wall of text" which one was trying to avoid (but wrapped up in nice boxes with some lines or shapes), and if one doesn't use them (well, look at the pretty/awful images in the links above).

Ideally, a well-coded visual program would have a pleasing aesthetic appearance which is expressive and communicates flow and function, and I've tried for that at:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming

(though I wish that there was an easy way to export an SVG version of a program)

I believe that what is needed here is some graphical equivalent to Literate Programming: http://literateprogramming.com

Is there a nice GUI toolkit integration which would allow making a graphical application with this? I have an idea I want to try it which might be a good fit.

"What does an algorithm look like?"

I'm an intensely visual person, but have never found a visual programming system which scales well --- the problem is, past a certain level of complexity one has to use modules, which then devolves the visual representation down to just a bunch named blocks.

That said, I'm using BlockSCAD:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/community/projects/1421975

to work up designs which I'm then putting into other tools.

Looking at GraphSCAD:

http://graphscad.blogspot.com

and there's also Ryven and pythonocc which I managed to get installed:

https://ryven.org

https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven

but I'd really like to see a tool for this sort of thing which made G-code.

I've been working on this sort of thing for a while.

For a Japanese spin on this see Tsugite:

http://ma-la.com/Tsugite_UIST20.pdf

which I worked through at:

https://community.carbide3d.com/t/a-study-of-joinery/28492

Traditional joints (box, dovetails, or obscure variations such as Knapp (cove and pin)) require a vertical fixture and 3 setups (at a minimum) --- cut parts to length and machine internal features, mount four board and cut joints in 2 corners, flip boards (with correct orientation) and cut other two corners.

Rabbet joints are simpler --- so simple that they were covered in a video as "The Simple Box":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V93xDM3lXsM

(ob. discl., I work for Carbide 3D)

There have been a number of programs developed for joinery. A current commercial option is:

http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html

(but it requires a vertical fixture)

One commercial option became freely available:

https://fabrikisto.com/tailmaker-software/

and ingeniously has an option where a 30 degree V endmill is used, but to cut boards held at a 15 degree angle, affording a 90 degree cut with a great deal of control and flexibility --- this can multiply setups to 9.

A variation I've been experimenting with is full-blind box joints:

https://community.carbide3d.com/t/full-blind-box-joints-in-c...

They're reasonably easily drawn up, though they do have some rather specific tooling requirements (a narrow 90 degree V endmill, a square tool of that or smaller diameter, and to make things easier, a large V endmill)

One test project was so tight that after putting it together for a dry-fit before gluing I was unable to get it apart:

https://cutrocket.com/p/63781eaf9822f/

I've been working on a programming system to make this sort of thing a bit easier:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

and have some sketched out joints which I've not been able to make using existing CAM tools which I hope I'll be able to do using this system (if anyone could recommend books on conic sections, I'd be grateful --- that's where I got bogged down last time).

While I certainly appreciate the virtues of a Domain Specific Language, and that OpenSCAD has been wildly successful because of its limitations, the limitations are downright infuriating at times.

An interesting potential alternative (which hopefully won't result in a fork) is adding Python:

https://pythonscad.org/

which I've had some success with:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

ImplicitCAD is interesting --- and the (new?) ability to open files from GitHub is _amazing_ (OpenSCAD recently gained that same facility, _and_ it supports the customizer: https://seasick.github.io/openscad-web-gui/?https://raw.gith... ), but it's a heavy lift given the need to work out how to edit files, preview them, and so forth.

Do you have a need to?

Do you have a project which might be able to make use of this? What sort of work do you do?

I am bookmarking this for re-reading later because I hope it will help me to understand how to implement Bézier curves in a tool I've been working on for controlling a CNC machine/creating files for cutting on a CNC:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

(but first I have to get arcs working)

Interesting.

I've long been frustrated by traditional CAD/CAM, so finally worked up:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

which allows me to use:

http://pythonscad.org/

and:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

to create joinery:

https://forum.makerforums.info/t/openscad-and-python-looking...

which would otherwise be tedious to draw up:

https://community.carbide3d.com/t/creating-drawers/19475/26

The problem here is that a fundamental question has not been answered, and as far as I can tell, has not been addressed by any of these visual environments:

What does an algorithm look like?

Herman Hesse alluded to this in his novel _The Glass Bead Game_, but despite decades of discussion and work, no one has made a convincing pysical representation of that system.

I love the concept, and have made some moderately complex attempts, e.g.,:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/community/projects/1430644

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

it always devolves to screen size being out-paced by problem complexity --- one gets something of an inkling of this at:

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Alternately, one can just break a project down into modules, but then the top-level view becomes the wall of text representation (albeit w/ nice lines or captured into pretty boxes) which one is ostensibly trying to escape.

I'd love to see someone succeed in this, and I've been using:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

quite a bit, and put a bit of money towards:

http://nodezator.com/

or perhaps Solvespace --- certainly FreeCAD, and if you're inclined to do programming, OpenSCAD --- see: https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview for an approach which uses RapCAD