Autoleveller

The website has also been upgraded and you will now need to register (one off fee) to download the latest version. http://www.autoleveller.co.uk/member-downloads/

The new version includes the much requested 'probe-persistence' amongst other goodies, so its worth it

Special thanks to Art for his support, assistance and testing services on this.

I can't be certain of what the issue is - and it could be a noise problem but during the spotting or pre-drilling phase I ended up with holes all over the place. Because the isolation milling worked well, I can only assume it might have been a noise problem. Anyway after reloading the autolevelled cnc file and then began having problems with the 10mm travel to the touch point. After this I gave up, and returned to the older version and just created 5 pcbs without a problem. If I get a chance I will revisit it but thought I would mention it. I hope it is not a red herring.

Thanks for mentioning, I realize my naming conventions are a little confusing but I think you mean Autoleveller 8 (AL8) and not Autoleveller 0.8.0 which is the previous member version.

I shall check this when I can and I will add this bug to my backlog. It is an early release so a few issues are expected.

Incidentally, if anyone has any suggestion for a renaming of AL8, I am all ears.

daedelus wrote: Incidentally, if anyone has any suggestion for a renaming of AL8, I am all ears.

You are correct concerning the confusing naming and to most renaming with respect to the latest Java release is probably not a good idea otherwise you should have done that from the beginning (I assume that is what the 8 meant???). If it is a new major it should have gone to 0.9.0. Autoleveller8 0.6.0 when you have a Autoleveller 0.8.7 could confuse as many users just simply want the latest version.

How about "ZAdjust" for the new name?

Sounds good EXCEPT you already have "brand recognition" out there as Autoleveler.

It might be confusing to many of the people and make them think this is another product and not want to try it??

Thanks for the response Art. Absolutely, this is the dilemma.

To stick with a name that is known and trusted but might be confusing since the previous version had almost the same name.

Or re-brand it and clear up any confusion between the 2 but lose the trust built up with the brand name

Just for the record... Both programs do the same job even though the code in the new version is almost completely re-written. The code in the new version is a huge improvement over the old and is simpler to use than the latest old version but at the same time is currently missing a couple of big features (most notably the probe logging persistence.

AutoLeveller = AL = old/current (currently v.0.8.7 is the latest)
AutoLeveller8 = AL8 = new program (currently v.0.6 is the latest)

I realise this is still somewhat confusing so how about 'AutoLeveller 2016' as the new name? This would maintain the trust in the name and distinguish the 2 better.

The name 'Autoleveller 2016' would date the new version which might be troublesome for the future it has been suggested to me. This is a valid point and I can see some of those issues arising.

I am thinking the new name for AL8 should be 'AutolevellerAE' where AE = 'Advanced Edition'. This postfix would eliminate the previously mentioned problems and better distinguish the 2 'editions'.

In the next release therefore, AL8 will be renamed to AutolevellerAE or ALAE for short, unless there are any strong objections before then.

Sounds perfect to me. Although I would be inclined to remain with the full name. The brand and trust is established and I would not have thought you would want to risk undermining it. Autoleveller is also clear to anyone looking for this great software. ALAE does not mean a great deal - but ultimately it is up to you.