Although the component manufacturing machinery world is rather quiet at the moment, it wasn’t too long ago that new pieces of computer-driven equipment, from a variety of suppliers, were coming into the marketplace at a rapid pace. Each piece of equipment seemed to have its own file format to drive it, and this presented a problem for both the equipment maker and the design/production software provider (like MiTek or ITW.)
For the guy making the equipment, the choice was either to create their own file format to drive the equipment or piggyback on to someone else’s file format and use it. Because programmers usually prefer creating their own tools, MiTek, Alpine, Virtek, Hundegger, and Koskovich all created different saw file formats. The problem then became supporting all those formats. No two are the same, and they could potentially change without notice. The cost of supporting each new file format was borne by plate manufacturers. A very inefficient system!
Having so many formats and depending on other companies to “get them right” really didn’t benefit anyone. Saw manufacturers found that the cause of bugs or inconsistencies was hard to pin down, and cost everyone time figuring out, “Is it the machine or the output from the design software?” Needless to say, this was also a big pain the people that owned the equipment! Saw makers also found they had to support formats other than their own to gain acceptance. Hundegger had their own format, but programmed their saws to read different saw file types in order to make their products more marketable.
Once established, file formats could become a straightjacket. Koskovich, for example created a simple file format years ago and all the plate suppliers supported it. This file format is simple and clever, but is incapable to such simple expansions as “three cuts on one end,” bevels, and detailed, user-specified piece orientation. Eventually it had to be abandoned. Although programmers might like the control of having their own file format, their companies had marketing issues when attempting to sell a saw whose format initially no one supported.
Around 2005, MiTek and Koskovich began discussing the possibility of a single file for the entire industry. The problem: no file format currently available was suitable. The solution began with the introduction of the Hundegger file format that supported the extra milling tools offered by that saw. Since Hundegger needed to be able to describe a piece with virtually any cut, hole, notch or bevel in it, they created the first truly robust piece description format. After considering for a time the idea of simply nominating the Hundegger file as ‘the standard,’ Koskovich instead created their own format, now used on the Miser saw, as their “can do all things” saw file.
In the last two years we’ve seen a major falloff in the introduction of new equipment. But when new equipment is introduced in the future, there is no longer any reason for a manufacturer to create an entirely new format to support it. There are several well-established ones, including the Hundegger and Miser formats that can describe virtually any piece. The bottom line for the component manufacturer: any piece of equipment you buy from any well-established equipment supplier will work with any design / production software you currently use. At some point, we may even see the day when SBCA officially sanctions one format, which would be of benefit to everyone.