Hello Guest it is October 20, 2021, 05:43:45 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - looker1

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »
1
Video P*r*o*b*i*n*g / Re: MachCloud point viewer program
« on: July 13, 2008, 05:03:11 PM »
Can someone explain the features within the Cloud and Mesh drop down menu items.(Or point me to documentation)

2
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 11, 2007, 12:51:54 PM »
How about:
RazorProbe
ProbeDance
Stirling Probe

3
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 09, 2007, 04:10:25 PM »
First impressions:
- In entering my triplets into probe25d.csv I went around the probe object clockwise and picked off the triplets.
- In order to get the triplets for probe25d.csv I did G31 manually in the MDI window of mach3. I used the values in the X&Y in the DRO.
- I would feel more comfortable if the horizontal moves were G31 instead of G00 even though the moves are at SafeZ height.
- it seems that the triplets are modified by the stepover when the probe3d.tap file is made. In my case this threw me into conflict with my soft limits. Somehow a big stepover gave me softlimits warning, but small stepovers did not create a softlimit problem. I got around it.
- Although you made it clear, It has just hit me that your algorithm is pure bed-of-nails, while the mach3 pluggin is modified so that if there is no hit while going down, the probe will move hozontally at full depth, thereby eliminating extra Z moves. It is hard to compare the two as far as runtime goes, but now I question  which one is better suited to my needs.

- Otherwise after 20 minutes I have not crunched my probe.

Good work Stirling, thanks

4
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 09, 2007, 02:36:00 PM »
Quote
Hope this helps - keep it coming - we will get your mystical object probed yet  ;D
Quote

Cheers, ....off to probe.

BTW, this thing that you made that I'm using, does it have a name, have I missed something?

5
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 09, 2007, 11:16:40 AM »
Bang head on keyboard... Thanks


The triplet points, are they the exact object boundary or boundary offset by probe radius?

how precise do the triplet point have to be(within backoff)?


Not sure I understand you here. Can you expand a little. But if it helps - don't confuse MY backoff with any G31 (internal)

I don't think I made my question clear enough...
I'll manually enter triplets to create the 3D probe path because my object surpasses the table boundaries similar to your example.

So, The triplets that I manually enter into probe25d.csv ....are the triplets  the precise positions of the points on the objects ' boundary or the points posiition offset by the probe radius?

And once the above question is adressed....how accurate do  have to be. Can I guestimate the points or will there be that box-like hunting move if the triplets are not close enough to the actual point on the objects boundary . Does the tolerance in triplet position have to be within your 50%-70% backoff.

6
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 08, 2007, 06:07:31 PM »
If so, then you don't HAVE to use the 2.5D routine to create the boundary. You can create that by any number of means, even by hand and feed it into the 3D routine.

...minor glitch, the X&Y values in probe3d.tap have been all rounded to integer vaues. This makes me conflict with softlimits.
I have tried saving probe25d.csv as *.rtf and *.txt but still no good.

Any advice?

7
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 07, 2007, 10:19:37 AM »
All may not be lost yet. From what I can tell your interest is in the 3D probing rather than 2.5D and you'd just (ideally) use the 2.5D to produce the boundary for the 3D probing routine - is that correct?

If so, then you don't HAVE to use the 2.5D routine to create the boundary. You can create that by any number of means, even by hand and feed it into the 3D routine. Check out the attached image and you'll see what I mean. This shows a table with the object (the rough star shape) to be (3D) probed overlapping the table. The small circles show the points (at some arbitrary stepover) that need to be probed and of course the small crosses represent wasted probing in standard routines. The arrows show the points that you could enter into the triplet file by hand, in this case 17 of them. Depending on your amount of "waste" space and the complexity of your object you may find it worthwhile to try this approach. Remember your boundary profile doesn't have to be hugely accurate to cut down dramatically on the waste probing. This example has a saving of nearly 40% over standard routines (crosses / (crosses + circles) * 100)

This is what I meant, thanks.
 I'll look into in depth over the weekend, thanks

Two questions in the mean time:
The triplet points, are they the exact object boundary or boundary offset by probe radius?
how precise do the triplet point have to be(within backoff)?

as for efficiency there is another point. Compared to the 3D pluggin: the pluggin reduces the stepover of one direction in relation to the ratio of the size of the individual values for X and Y probing area. So the time increases in proporion to the ratio of the probing area.

8
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 06, 2007, 04:29:51 PM »
That, as they say, is a very good question. I'm intrigued as to what you have in mind. Maybe you have a feature for the ? ? ? tab.

The answers: Currently my 2.5D probing routine will not cope with not being able to go all around the object. Why? because it wasn't designed to do that and it will hit limits, soft hard or physical.

Re: the efficiency of my 3D routine: The less rectangular the object, the more efficient it is over a "standard" bed o nails routine. I'm thinking there's probably a nice mathematical equation for calculating the actual efficiency and it might be based on something like this: Calculate the area of the rectangular bounding box of the object. Calculate the actual area of the object. Divide the former by the latter giving a measure of efficiency. Obviously the more real estate that is NOT probed by mine but that IS probed by the standard, then the more efficient mine is.

Hope this helps.

Ian

Well then I think that I won't be able to use your routine for the monent because my object is larger than my table.
I'll keep an eye on it though for smaller projects I may have.

9
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 06, 2007, 12:41:09 PM »
Not sure I'm with you there looker1, can you expand a little?

Lets say for example my X&Y travel is 2" x 2"
Now lets say my wierdly shaped object has a footprint of 6" x 6".

I manage to shoehorn it on my table, with parts overhanging the edge of the table. BUT with some empty space within the 2" x 2" work area.

Can your routine deal with not being able to go completely around the probed item?
If so how would you characterize the efficiency compared to a standard bed-of-nails run?

10
General Mach Discussion / Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« on: December 06, 2007, 11:12:31 AM »
By the by, stirling, can the object being probed be bigger than the X&Y travel of my machine?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »