Messages

1201

General Mach Discussion / Re: Could this be done with Mach

« on: August 21, 2011, 04:17:28 PM »

Spunk - I've explained why this is NOT a good option.

Tom - I'm amazed at your last reponse.

Both. I guess I've wasted my time.

Ian

1202

General Mach Discussion / Re: Could this be done with Mach

« on: August 21, 2011, 01:20:00 PM »

Tom, files attached. Basically it's vector addition which you can do in a variety of ways but one way is to extrude each curve into a surface. Where the two surfaces intersect, there's the 3D toolpath. I guess it depends on whether you can do this in your CAD but you should be able to do it one way or another.

Terry, Re: the Excel idea, it's seductively simple but it's limited for the reasons you say. The problem arises because the two sets of X values can't easilly be made to match or synch. My way the two paths can be quite different - i.e. the finishing path can have more detail if you like and yet even though the paths are different they're allways EXACTLY in synch.

Ian

1203

VB and the development of wizards / Re: Passing Code to mach

« on: August 21, 2011, 08:48:32 AM »

With regard to doing this WITHIN Mach from a wizard or a macro take a look at Support/Mach Wiki at the top of this page.

In particular look at

http://www.machsupport.com/MachCustomizeWiki/pdfs/VB-Script-Commands.pdf

and

http://www.machsupport.com/MachCustomizeWiki/index.php?title=Mach_specific_Subroutines/Functions_grouped_by_purpose

and look at "openTeachFile" in conjunction with "code".

With regard to sending code to Mach from an EXTERNAL app, SheetCAM amongst others do this - might be worth asking Les on the SheetCAM yahoo group.

Hope this helps.

Ian

1204

General Mach Discussion / Re: Could this be done with Mach

« on: August 21, 2011, 07:50:20 AM »

No need for anything special. Mach3 Mill, CAD/CAM for 3 axis and 3 axis Mach Mill POST. If you try what I suggested, although in CAD and CAM (and Mach) you'll see a rather weird toolpath because it'll be in our Earthling view of 3D it'll cut just fine on a machine exactly as in the vid which is PHYSICALLY in a different universe of TWO 2D planes that share X. Try it - I just did with my standard POST and it works just fine. Here's the very rough and ready code. The Z is the roughing tool and the Y the finishing.

Ian

1205

General Mach Discussion / Re: Could this be done with Mach

« on: August 20, 2011, 05:02:28 PM »

Sure you can do this with Mach. As DaOne said before he lost faith, this is only a three axis job, you just need to bend your mind a bit to see it.

Let's forget the "pre-trimmer" - this is just a dumb tool dragged along by the X axis. Also forget the fact that the stock is spinning - that's of no interest to Mach.

So, that leaves us with the X axis with the 2 tools attached. The first tool is the Y axis and the second tool is the Z axis. To help see this, in your mind just rotate the second tool round the X axis by 90 degrees.

Now the real mind bender. Imagine a toolpath for the Y axis - it's just a profile of the job but so is the Z axis but staggered to the left and rotated by 90 degrees so standard CAM can handle it. Then you generate an engraving path. I used Rhino for the pic attached. It's supposed to be a baseball bat - hey give me a break it's not bad and it's late and the beers are doing just fine. 

Cheers

Ian

1206

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Re: Enroute to Mach 3 cutting problem-seeking advice

« on: August 20, 2011, 01:21:16 PM »

No worries.

by the way what is the best way to cut incremental or absolute?

That, as they say, is a very good question. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the good answer is. 

Ian

1207

General Mach Discussion / Re: Radius to end of arc differs from radius to start on line number ##

« on: August 20, 2011, 12:31:00 PM »

Hi Armenias

Your DXF works fine in LazyCAM and it produces good code on my system. I'm thinking you're running an unlicenced demo version which is restricted to the number of lines it'll handle. Hence your gcode is not wrong - it's just not complete.

Ian

1208

General Mach Discussion / Re: Radius to end of arc differs from radius to start on line number ##

« on: August 20, 2011, 06:20:18 AM »

Never used it but from a quick look it appears that LazyCAM posts either inc IJ OR abs IJ depending on how you set it on the Post Gcode option screen. Either way it EXPLICITLY posts a G90.1 or a G91.1 in the code preamble. So unless I'm missing something Mach can NOT get the mode wrong regardless of what you might have set previously in Config/General Config. Mach simply switches mode according to what is POSTED. Although a mis-match of IJ mode WILL cause this error I don't see how this can be the case in this instance. The ONLY time the operator has to make sure Mach and CAM modes match is when the CAM DOESN'T explicitly post the mode. There are other reasons why you might get the error in your title and I suspect that's the case here.

Ian

1209

General Mach Discussion / Re: connecting sanyo denki drivers with parallel port.

« on: August 19, 2011, 12:11:47 PM »

Hi PV

You could use MaxCL mode but if I read your man correctly, your drive is configurable so you could also use regular step/dir mode. See pages 23 to 25. Dip switch setting FR - set this to On (step/dir mode). Connect your step pin (PP pin 2) to driver pin 2 and your dir pin (PP pin 3) to driver pin 4. Then connect a nice clean 5V to driver pins 1 and 3. Then by pulling PP pins 2, 3 low you get to light up your optos and watch it dance.

Usual conditions apply - if it breaks your pooter, your driver or your heart - you get to keep the pieces.

btw i am a chartered accountant.

Hay - don't worry - someone has to be...  

Ian

1210

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Re: Enroute to Mach 3 cutting problem-seeking advice

« on: August 19, 2011, 10:06:02 AM »

Hi Jamuto - welcome to the forum.

Your code uses incremental IJ arcs but you have Mach set in absolute IJ mode. Either set Mach to incremental on config/gen config screen. OR put a G91.1 at the beginning of your code.

Cheers

Ian