Machsupport Forum

G-Code, CAD, and CAM => LazyCam (Beta) => Topic started by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 04:16:39 AM

Title: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 04:16:39 AM
Hello.

I think this is a bug in Lazycam. I have a DXF file that loads just fine. It is only 2 lines and 3 or 4 arcs.
When it outputs the gcode, lines are fine, but arcs are not done currectly (start and end point seens ok, but the dirrection is incorrect).
This can be seen on the toolpath screen of mach3, so it is nothing to do with the machine that I am running.

I attached the dxf and the tap file.

Thank you

Filipe
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 04:19:38 AM
I forgot to tell that the mach3 is version 044 (up to date).
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 11:27:57 AM
To be easier for everone that reads the post, I took a snapshot (pictures) of the dxf and of the wrong toolpath that is presented in mach3.

Thank you again.
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: Chaoticone on February 06, 2007, 11:47:18 AM
This is the toolpath screen shot I get with the DXF you posted.


Brett
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: Chaoticone on February 06, 2007, 11:55:50 AM
Oooooops, I meant to add the code.

Brett
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 12:14:06 PM
Ok it works for the XY plane.
I forgot to mencion that information.

My machine needs to cut something with the xZ plane.
So I changed all the Y codes to Z, and J to K. Removed also the Y lines (not needed because I only need the X and Z axis).
Also added the G18 insteed of the G17 to activate the XZ plane. The output was (and is) the same that I send the picture.

Something is wrong !  :-\

I attached again the gcode (that have the Z insteed of the Y).

Thanks
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: Chaoticone on February 06, 2007, 12:20:45 PM
Now you lost me. Are you running a lathe?

Brett
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 06, 2007, 01:25:11 PM
No. It is a custom machine for a client.

It have 3 axis. X is always running, and sometimes Y do the cutting others the Z does it.
For the posted problem it should not matter, right ? It is only a matter of calling Y or Z.
Try to change all the Y for Z and all the J for K in the gcode. You will get the wrong toolpath (and mach3 does it wrong also).

Normally what I expect to see is a translation from the xy plane to the xz plane, where the toolpath was the same, but it is not (or maybe I am doing something wrong).
If it is a bug is a severe one, so I am probably missing something.

Filipe
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: Brian Barker on February 07, 2007, 06:09:31 PM
This is a problem, People have a VERY hard time seeing what direction is positive and what is negitive... this will change the direction of the Arc. I will have a look at it and see that we have it going the right direction...
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: ftomazz on February 08, 2007, 08:34:02 AM
I opened a new tread in the general forum, because it is not a bug of lazycam but, in my modest opinion, is a bug of mach3.
Mr Brian, if you can, see that thread, it is easy to see the toolpath (wrong in my opinion) and the gcode side by side.

If it was a problem, of seeing the CW or anti CW direction the toolpath in the XY plane would be the same of the one in the XZ plane. this do not happen and the XY toolpath is different from the one in the XZ plane, as I said before, only by changing the Y for Z, the J for K, and G17 for G18.

Filipe
Title: Re: Lazycam arcs output bug ?
Post by: Brian Barker on February 11, 2007, 10:29:22 AM
I have not been feeling well for the past few days :( and I am headed to CA for a week after that... so I don't think I am going to have time to dig into the Arc directions... I can tell you that I did go over that with code from Cam software. that is not to say that the cam software didn't put out the code in the wrong direction... I will have a look at it, but you are the only one to report this as a bug :(

Later
Brian