Machsupport Forum

G-Code, CAD, and CAM => LazyCam (Beta) => Topic started by: Chip on September 04, 2006, 01:13:21 AM

Title: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on September 04, 2006, 01:13:21 AM
Hi, Brian

While working with another user on Current ver of LazyCam.

It appears that the G41 and G42 are reversed when being generated with the G(Mode) command..

This is in Default Mode, There dosent appear to be a way in User.pst to change this.

The two .tap files i've changed the G41,G42 around and Rem the Post ones out.

Mabey it's somthing else wrong as i havent used cutter offsets much.

Thank's, Chip
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on September 04, 2006, 09:58:09 AM
There was an othe that said it was reversed so I changed it.. now it needs to go back.. I think I need to look deeper into this
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on September 04, 2006, 03:08:51 PM
Thank's Brian

Hear are 2 views from Mach3.081, I no there are allot of people using offsets with it.

In the View 1 below, climb is off, corrected G42 instead of (G41 as LC posted) the cut is now inside and is to the right side of line cutting in non climb as it should be.

If you leave the LC posted G41 the view shows (inside cut) but the offset is applied to the outside as seen in view 2 the cut is still non climb but doesn't agree with the leadin.

Thank's Chip
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on September 07, 2006, 06:33:15 PM
Hi, Brian

Enjoy your trip, I have looked at this some more, If I use the Keep Layer info. option as it is, it posts code OK except for needing to swap the

G41, G42, The other Load Options seem to have some problems with the G41,42, as you stated it needs a thorough look through.

Thank's, Chip
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on September 12, 2006, 02:58:14 PM
Hi, Brian

So how was your trip, tryed LC generated G-code in latest Mach3D1.90.091 still the same problems.

Thank's Chip
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on September 15, 2006, 10:30:17 PM
I am working on some code in Mach3.. once I am done that I will be back on Lcam :)
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: looker1 on October 02, 2006, 03:21:04 PM
I am working on some code in Mach3.. once I am done that I will be back on Lcam :)

I think I am experiencing the same probblem.
any developments on this question?
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 02, 2006, 11:18:57 PM
In the next week I will be getting back to Lcam. I have been working in Mach3 getting some small bugs out. We are very close to having Mach3 to the point that we are very happy with it...  After that it is Lcam time :)
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 03, 2006, 02:46:57 AM
Hi Brian,

Regarding LazyCam I have tried something similar to Metaza machine from Roland - impact printer. I modified a cnc machine and instead of Z axis I have replaced with an electromagnetic plunger which is hammering each dot times corresponding to Z depth. Everything is going superb except the speed which is very slow around 30-40 mm/min, between dots. The rapid is around 5000 mm/min. I mention that there are no limitations of the machine in the respects of speed & acceleration. Could you, please, help to modify the speed? How I can change the speed between dots? It is not a matter of machine; it is a setting matter as during the simulation is the same speed. If the speed can be changed (I did not figure out how) then we can do the same things as Metaza is doing, but on regular CNC with electromagnetic plunger instead of Z axis assembly. I have already produced some photoengraving and the quality is very good but the time is too long due to low speed.

Thank you.

Zoltan
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 03, 2006, 07:23:38 AM
What is making it slow? Are you using G00 moves to get into position?
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 03, 2006, 08:07:45 AM
Hi Brian,

Thank you for reply. I think it is a matter of using/setting up of it. Let me explain to you. I open the bmp in Lazycam and generate the Gcode for the lowest grid value accepted by program (btw if I try to setup a lower value that the lowest accepted then the program is blocking). I define a value for feed let's say F3000 when I generate the Gcode. I open the Gcode in Mach3 or in a simulator program and the value of speed between two dots during the engraving or simulation is not bigger than 30-40 mm/min despite the maximum value setup in the tuning of motors and whatever value of acceleration. The idea is to change this value higher than 30-40 mm/min. BTW I am speaking about V-dril process. If you give a trial of doing from bmp a V-dril engraving you will see exctly what I mean.

Thank you.

Zoltan
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 03, 2006, 08:12:45 AM
Brian,

I really think that we must focus little bit on this feature of Lazycam as this is a very potential feature of it. Just imagine that converting a regular CNC machine into an impact engraver would be very easy with the help of Lazycam and Mach3. Just a replacement of Z axis with that electromagnetic hammer - which is a small electromagnet with a plunger with carbide tip. Everything what Metaza is doing can be done very very easy. I have done already this. The issue is only the speed of process.

Zoltan
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 03, 2006, 12:06:15 PM
I can look at adding a bit of code next week when I am working on Lcam :)
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 11, 2006, 03:53:51 AM
Hi Brian,

Any updates?

THank you.

Zoltan
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 12, 2006, 08:18:53 AM
The work on Lcam has started and should be a week or so till we are done. :)

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 13, 2006, 05:11:27 AM
Hi,

I got Lazycam 2.66 with the newest version of Mach3, but when I tried Vdrill, after I open the bmp during conversion it gets blocked. I could not make it works during several trials. With the same setting - pixels, size, pixel size, number of dots, etc the previous 2.64 is doing the conversion really fast.

Thank you,

Zoltan

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 24, 2006, 02:40:19 AM
Hi Brian,

No news?

Thank you.

Zoltan
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on October 24, 2006, 12:37:24 PM
Hi, Brian

Have try-ed ver 2.66 with DXF file below that prev. worked with earlier ver of LC now.

After post G02,G03 and G81 won't allow Mach3 to run, haven't been able to get G41, G42 to work eather.

Any update would be nice.

Thank's Chip.

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Chip on October 24, 2006, 11:48:00 PM
Hi Art & Brian

Just downloaded Mach3 ver 2.005, LC post's code now  without a problem, hear's what I find.

I'am useing the DXF in my previous post above.

Plasma & IJ's checked, work's great, will generate error if spindel speed is above 0 in  Layer Control though.

Plasma, G41/42 & IJ's checked, work's great, G41/G42 backwards, last object cut has no Offset G41/G42, same spindle speed problem.

G41/G42 & IJ's checked only and tool #1 in Layer Control, tringal is drawn eratic.

G41/G42 & IJ's checked only and tool #0 in Layer Control, M5 are missing after first object cut till last cut, G0 moves.

After loading 20 or so file's Mach3 ver 2.005 failes to display cut path and requires re-laod to fix

Just some item's I find.

Thank's Chip

 
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 25, 2006, 11:53:03 PM
Thanks I will see if I can find some of that in the next few weeks

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: zoltan on October 26, 2006, 01:52:58 AM
Hi Brian,

Please, take a look at LazyCam 2.66 as it does not work on Vdrill. It crashes each time.

Thank you.

Zoltan

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 27, 2006, 11:35:56 AM
we are working on a new rev and it is on the list :)

Thanks
Brian
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: CNC-Steuerung on October 27, 2006, 01:58:10 PM
Hi Brian,

Bug report:

If I import a CAD-file and want to move the origin point my LC crashes with the following error:


Greetings from Germany

Wolfram

Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: CNC-Steuerung on October 27, 2006, 04:34:20 PM
Hi Brian,

Problem found:

Ive tested LC on sev. Computers...
No problem on my Mach-PC at my machine, no problem at my laptop with 1024 x 768 pixels..
But:
On my Developer - Desktop (Matrox Parhelia G650 with first Display Sony 24 Inch 16:10 and 1600 x 1000 Pixel, second Display Dell 24 Inch TFT 16:10 with 1920 x1200 Pixel)
the problems appears only at 32 Bit Color Depth....
If I change it back to 16 Bit LC runs fine at the Sony Display, without crash on the Dell, but with problems at the viewing area....

Hope that is helpful for your debugging...

Greetings from Germany

Wolfram
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on October 27, 2006, 09:38:26 PM
Thank you that is a very big help!!!
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: praetorian on December 06, 2006, 12:38:44 PM
Someone, helppppppppp

I was using my mill today and the x axis suddenly stopped working, I tell Mach 2 to move it but it just won't...............HELPPPPP
Title: Re: LazyCam ver 2.64 and G(Mode) generation of G41, G42
Post by: Brian Barker on December 07, 2006, 10:30:46 PM
Check for a bad drive and were the DRO's still moving?