Just my oppinion, but the names in the tool database are a bit (shall we say) convoluted and hard to follow. Why Not just have them show up as what they are without all of the detail behind it? All we really need to see in the list is NAME, SIZE, TYPE. The details can be hidden behind another panel.
Here is what MM looks like after I imported a database. Looks confusing.
I am going to assume these entries are part of the database when Paul (@shipmodeller) ran it through his tool. As will all Libraries, best to refine for your particular machines and workflows. You can edit these libraries. We recommend folks should, review and edit any libraries to fit their needs.
Yes, I would not use these database until the Metric vs Automatic is better understood and the tool will thus generate usable values. I have converted 4 tool makers databases so far, so just need a bit of tweaking on this issue. And note that the tool bases are just that.. still would be needed to be tweaked for material. I have used these in my work, but my conversions were only metric… and thus were ok. The ones I released have the problems with Metric vs Automatic, I will release some fixed ones by the end of the week. I got lazy.
Oh, absolutely/ I assume it will get the the point where we can share libraries like we do with material libraries in lightburn. Everything I see so far has been spot on and I for one am looking forward to having a similar knowledgeset instead of a completely different one. I havent hooked up a machine yet, but soon.
