thosj wrote:I know this is likely a touchy subject! But ...
Yet you ask anyhow ??
thosj wrote:...seeing as MSM was originally conceived as the screenset for Mach 4 and seeing as there is talk of Mach 4 being "real soon now", so it might be less that 3 years now, has there been any consideration with regard to MSM for Mach 4?
FYI - I'm not taking the "less than 3 years to mach 4 bet" - history says I would loose that one...
I have mach4 variants of MSM that have never been released. They included screen support for "committed" features that could not be prototyped on mach 3. However, in the (literally) multiple years that have elapsed since then, the feature set for mach4 has changed many times - I quit trying to track what was not defined or documented and so I don't know what the latest ideas are for the most recent incarnation of mach4.
For context, it's good to understand what mach 4 is and is not:
1) Mach4 is NOT an upgrade to mach 3.
a) No (none nada zip) mach 3 scripts will run - the scripting language was changed - so ALL scripts need to be rewritten. All the mach3 APIs that scripts can call are different.
b) Not long ago there was no screen designer in mach 4; now one is being worked on. There is no info avail as to what that really means technically. I have been told that it will not load mach3 screen sets.
c) Brains will not be part of mach4.
I can say that CVI is giving serious consideration as to what to do with MSM and Mach 4 - but until there is a working mach4 to develop with, there is not much CVI can do no mater what we might want to do.
Pragmatically, other than maybe gcode (and I've heard talk about that level too),
nothing is compatible between mach3 and mach4.
So, unless you are part of the "I love the bleeding edge crowd", I'm wondering what would motivate users to shift from 3 to 4?
The conundrum is illustrated by your comment:
thosj wrote:I only ask because I simply won't move to Mach 4, or even try it, without MSM functionality. For me, MSM IS Mach 3 and I can't envision anything that could be in Mach 4 that would convince me otherwise.
Tom
Thanks for that quote!
It points out a key issue from CVI's viewpoint: Will there ever be (and if so when) enough mach 4 users to make the ROI calculation for MSM (or a follow on product) for mach 4 positive? (consider that a rhetorical question...) All I know right now is that "the jury's still out..."
Dave