Messages

1

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 4.0 Rev Update

« on: February 12, 2012, 03:53:50 PM »

Hey there
Any news from the V4-front-line?

2

SmoothStepper USB / Re: Spindle encoder

« on: October 05, 2011, 04:14:58 PM »

Any (tested) news about sync-tapping/rigid-tapping with the SS?
CAN it be possible at all?

Greetz, Marc

3

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 4.0 Rev Update

« on: August 29, 2011, 04:04:09 AM »

OK, thank you anyway

Seems like i will have to look for another software, because i'd need G41/42 AND G68 in one program
If the smoothstepper would work correctly i could use my CAM-System on the control-pc for doing the offset, but it seems like the SS has it's own bugs again.
The machine is very heavy and fast, so there's not much error-tolerance

My wife would say: Same sh**, different day^^

4

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 4.0 Rev Update

« on: August 29, 2011, 03:21:16 AM »

Its not dead, just taking a lot longer to do the total rewrite than was anticipated

Hood

At least you didn't say "a little"
Is there any cautious estimate about the release?

5

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 4.0 Rev Update

« on: August 28, 2011, 12:35:11 PM »

Seems like V4 is dead, before ever seen the daylight 

6

General Mach Discussion / Re: Auto-height-compensation possible?

« on: March 07, 2011, 12:23:24 PM »

Adding the engraving-paths on the solid is not the problem, resp. my CAM will do this

Doing the scan and meshing the cloud is still my problem. Or even how the origin is defined and recalled when engraving and things like that

And Laser scanning is not what i'm looking for. I'd like to use a probe with a precision-sensor (under 2µm accuracy). So i hope to get around 0,001" at the end.
Do you know points2cloud? It's free and i'd try with this first.

@al:
Thank you, but i'm not sure how this could help me? Maybe my english is too bad after all, but i don't see how i could use this for this purpose

@BR549
Still no idea who tried that too?

7

General Mach Discussion / Re: Auto-height-compensation possible?

« on: March 06, 2011, 10:20:33 AM »

Hehe, maybe for you that would be an easy way. But i don't have ANY programming-skills^^
You don't accidentally want to program such an app? I'd pay for it if you would.


But as i said, projecting the gcode on a 3d-surface shouldn't be a problem, too. Afaik, my CAM knows how to do that.


@BR549
Thank you very much, i hope you can find it



I read some threads about probing now, but no useful hints yet. Maybe i will have to read the left 500, too

8

General Mach Discussion / Re: Auto-height-compensation possible?

« on: March 06, 2011, 08:48:08 AM »

Nice cat btw

The panel in the video is just an example for the ability and possibilities it offers.
Imagine you have a knife handle, a rounded lighter, a convex medal or something like that and you need to engrave it. Only one try and the need for a perfect finish
So i think such an option would be very nice to have?

For example, I had to engrave two exhausts yesterday and the welded outside was very bumpy and uneven. So, that option would have been VERY useful.

You don't accidentally know a good link for me to get closer into that probing-thing? I did a search for probing and, wew, that's a lot^^
Engraving on a 3d-surface is not a problem, but the probing itself and the translation into the 3d-surface is a new arena for me ;-)

9

General Mach Discussion / Auto-height-compensation possible?

« on: March 06, 2011, 08:09:02 AM »

Hey there...

I am searching for this for years now but can't find anything like that.

Please take a look at this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKO--ubR86o

Here you can see the auto-height-compensation, datron offers. The machine can scan the surface z-height in a defineable raster.
Then the machine is able to compensate the different z-heights with the z-values of the GCode and it achieves a nearly perfect gravure.

Is there ANY possibility to do this with Mach? Or with a combination of probing and CAM?

Thank you very much and best regards,

Marc

10

General Mach Discussion / Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update

« on: October 15, 2009, 04:07:47 PM »

Numeric schemes always blow up at some point, because you have different tools that, per the scheme, would end up with the same number - straight-flute vs spiral flute, e.g..

Not if the numbers can go "far" enough SCNR