Machsupport Forum

Mach Discussion => General Mach Discussion => Topic started by: HimyKabibble on January 21, 2013, 06:55:58 PM

Title: G-code Question
Post by: HimyKabibble on January 21, 2013, 06:55:58 PM

It has long been my understanding that G-code blocks should always execute in-sequence.  For example:

G0 X0
G1 X1 F10
M7
X2

This should turn on the coolant when X passes by 1.0.  However, on one machine, I see the coolant not turning on until X=2.  Is this correct or not?

Regards,
Ray L.

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: Hood on January 21, 2013, 07:07:57 PM

The coolant should come on just after the axis gets to X1 and before it starts to move to X2.
Hood

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: Hal on January 21, 2013, 08:25:23 PM

There maybe a delay in the coolant coming on in the machine itself.
Hal

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: BR549 on January 22, 2013, 11:14:46 AM

HIYA RAY it is a dwell problem in mach3 with Macros. SOmewhere along the line it developed a DELAY with all Mcodes. The latest Ver was corrected with only the M3.

(;-( TP

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: Hood on January 22, 2013, 11:17:15 AM

Terry I reckon its the kFlops own software that Ray is having issues with.
Hood

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: HimyKabibble on January 22, 2013, 11:21:50 AM

Hood,

Yes, this is something reported by a KFlop user.  KFlop seems to currently consider it ok to merge the two moves, then execute the M7 AFTER the merged move is complete, which I believe is incorrect, per the RS274 spec.  In fact, RS274 even says that if a G0-G3 occurs on the same line as an M7, the M7 MUST execute first, so it stands to reason if they are on separate lines, they should execute in the order in which they appear.  This "feature" has never caused me a problem just due to the way my code is structured, but I was just curious what was "correct" in this case.  One thing for certain - if it is "wrong", and I believe it is, it will be fixed within a very few days at most.  TomK, "Mr. KFlop", is VERY responsive when it comes to bug fixes and feature enhancements.

Regards,
Ray L.

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: Hood on January 22, 2013, 01:37:26 PM

It is wrong if going by standards but then again there are no rules to say you should follow standards so if TomK reckons its the way it should be then it is.

Regarding the responsiveness, thats the good thing about having software produced and  tied to the product that you sell, you know both sides of things and can easily alter to suit :)
Hood

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: HimyKabibble on January 22, 2013, 04:27:16 PM

And....  Tom has already acknowledged this is a bug, and is hard at work fixing it....  I really do love the KFlop!  One will be going on my new machine just as soon as I finish its PDB and ATC.

Regards,
Ray L.

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: BR549 on January 22, 2013, 04:29:46 PM

The nice things about standards is there are so many to choose from. (;-)

Now 10 lashes for Ray for not identifying WHAT he was working with(;-)

Yes the standard IS to turn ON coolant after  the M3 and turn OFF coolant before M5. That is because of through spindle coolant issues and slinger/seals on the spindle.

(;-) TP

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: Hood on January 22, 2013, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HimyKabibble on January 22, 2013, 04:27:16 PM

I really do love the KFlop!
Regards,
Ray L.

Thats because you are a programmer ;)

Hood

Title: Re: G-code Question
Post by: BR549 on January 22, 2013, 09:43:01 PM

Dedicated software /Hardware is a serious advantage over software only applications. The other controllers have jumped light years ahead in some cool areas because they can be assurred that their software and hardware work together to get the job done.

Been there seen that a lot lately, (;-) TP