Hello, I am a new Gsender user and I find myself greatly disappointed with the fact that this program does not support a Test Run Mode. After spending hours trying to find a comparable feature and browsing the internet to see why it worked in previous versions but not now, I finally realised it was phased out! Not to be contentious, but this is a poor idea. When every other sender worth its sauce (Candle, UGS, CNCjs) has a feature, it is probably a bad idea to remove it.
I understand that not many people who write here were using it, but those who write here only represent a small portion of those who use this software. From my perusing of this forum I would say they represent the portion of our community with enough money to purchase better/dedicated GRBL CAM software. Not everyone has the money or time to buy/ install/ maintain a fully customised GRBL post processor. As an working entry level machinist, I donāt have the funds or time to install anything that is not free or student edition.
I understand that many of the testers used for this program are full time programmers and/or small business owners, but just because they donāt need a way to check if their cheap/default post processors messed up their code, doesnāt mean the rest of us donāt. I appreciate the work everyone a Sienci labs is doing, but I do not understand why free software should take an elitist approach.
As it stands right now, I am having to CAM in SolidCAM Makers edition, post process with one of the 5 processors they allow and then edit my code by hand. I then have to load it onto Candle to run the Test Run function to make sure I didnāt miss anything. At this point I then have to load it onto Gsender??? Why add an extra step when my G-code sender should have it all anywaysā¦..
Your program has so many features that are above and beyond its competitors, why wouldnāt you keep the basic ones too? Thatās like having a Ferrari with heated seats, surround sound and siri built in, but you didnāt include a basic radio because most rich people use Siriusā¦..Really? What if a poor man saves up his whole life to get a Ferrari and he loves the radio? Thank you for your time.
Wow ā¦. gSender is FREE ā¦. while making a suggestion about features is perfectly fine, ranting (which is how your post came across to me) about the lack of a feature is not ok.
To relate that to the Ferrari situation - the poor man would have to make do without the radio or go out and buy an aftermarket radio after saving up a bit more ā¦. he could also trade his Ferrari in to get a vehicle that has a radio (and slap a āFerrariā sticker on the back end)
While I havenāt researched this, I am pretty sure there are programs out there that can verify gcode. You could also just use a program that has the features you are looking for!
[Actually not the case! ]You can always run two versions of GSender on the same PC.
Test Run also appears to just be a command that you could send via controller to do the dry run through your GCode for you, you might even be able to make a macro of it in current GSender gSender Surfacing "Test Run" doesn't seem to work
@josephskyler91 Setting aside the insults that you have thrown at me and others, I believe that is incombent on me to point out that you can run any number of gSender versions that included the verify function. Those versions are available to download on the Sienci website.
Be sure to read the posts on the forum that instruct on how to install a version previous to the one that you seem to have installed now.
When no Ferrari drivers complains that the guy that installed the radio never wired them -for years-, even Ferrari might conclude the feature can be dropped.
Frustration about things that might be better, I get, but cāmon this aint no fakebook. There are real decent people here trying to help other decent people.
And Michael, we like to help Michael.
This answer was posted in an earlier topic. Seems like verify might be comming back in a later version, but then automated. I hope they include a checkbox to disable it. I donāt like features I donāt use.
I appreciate you getting back to me. I apologize for any feelings of insult that may have been accidentally sent. I was just simply attempting to point out what I feel was a poor choice in the suggestions field. If this is not a place where I can voice my opinion or make suggestions, I will not do so. Again I apologize for any offense and I appreciate the free software.
@josephskyler91 You are certainly free to make suggestions. You are free to voice your opinion. However, when, in your very first post, you falsely categorize members and you accuse Sienci of being āelitistā, you should expect some push back.
Since you can easily use a version of gSender that includes the verify function as a standalone feature, I for one found your position extreme.
I want to make it clear that I do not speak for Sienci or anyone else in this matter.
I hope that you can find what you are looking for.
Understood. I appreciate your feedback regardless of whether or not you work here or not. It was not my intention to stir up problems. I simply wished to express my opinion and make a recommendation that the simpler functions should not be removed because they are, in my opinion, there for a reason.
I have complete respect for the difficulty of running a project in this madness huge. In fact I donāt think I would even know how to begin. Also let me make it clear: gsender seems to be the top performer in the g code sending field. Especially when you consider the number of features that it has, and how user-friendly the design is. Again, this is why I mentioned that Iām seriously surprised it lacks such a simple feature.
Now that I know I can just simply use an older version of the software I will do so. Thank you again for all your assistance.
