[sansbury]

Instead of programmers responding sullenly out of wounded ego, why don't they respond proudly from a proven ego?

There's only one ego in this room and I think it's yours.

You've stated that you're not a programmer, and you didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Ger21 actually wrote his own CAM library, and I've studied this problem at length, and have been in the software industry as a developer and product manager since 1999. If clients want to throw spitballs at me, that's fine, they're paying for the privilege, but if you want help from the community, I suggest you avoid psychoanalysis.

Not being a programmer, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of implementing a robust algorithm. It may be that your own needs are limited and the examples you've worked on paper are what I've referred to as trivial. Or, it may be that as you've worked your problems, you've failed to notice when you solved a problem by using a bit of human judgment that's very hard to implement in software. Either way, if the solution is really so much closer to the surface as you think it is, then post some of your sketches here and walk us through them. You may in fact have a great idea, but we need to see a little more.

[307startup]

There's only one ego in this room and I think it's yours.

You've stated that you're not a programmer, and you didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Ger21 actually wrote his own CAM library, and I've studied this problem at length, and have been in the software industry as a developer and product manager since 1999. If clients want to throw spitballs at me, that's fine, they're paying for the privilege, but if you want help from the community, I suggest you avoid psychoanalysis.

I knew I shouldn't have thrown away my frequent-visitors card from the Holiday Inn

Not being a programmer, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of implementing a robust algorithm. It may be that your own needs are limited and the examples you've worked on paper are what I've referred to as trivial. Or, it may be that as you've worked your problems, you've failed to notice when you solved a problem by using a bit of human judgment that's very hard to implement in software. Either way, if the solution is really so much closer to the surface as you think it is, then post some of your sketches here and walk us through them. You may in fact have a great idea, but we need to see a little more.

I don't have a scanner, so I will attempt to help walk you through what I've done on my own. It would help tremendously if you have a nesting software like is used on routers or plasma cutters.

Draw up a piece of difficult problem...a pocket with a boss, with convex edges that protrude into the workspace, what-have-you.

Use this defined area to nest circles that approximate a safe compromise between your tool OD and the smallest radii on your workpiece. If your drawing has no radii, but rather uses all straight lines, it is even easier.

Using your nesting software, exclude areas to be avoided...the boss, the protruding edges, etc.

Populate this remaining area with your chosen diameter circles.

This is a very low-fidelity version of the idea I'm trying to express.

I regret that sometimes the keyboard isn't my friend, and it's difficult for me to convey how I'm attempting to communicate something. I don't mean to disparage anyone. We're all adults, and we've all worked with people who at one time or another has gotten in their own way, just as we've worked with people who aren't aware of their own incompetence, or have an overblown sense of their own worth. I think that sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees from their unique vantage point. This is why I try to implement ideas from different areas of life when dealing with problems.