Messages

441

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 16, 2010, 09:20:37 AM »

Hmm...well now, Mick.

Can you perhaps elaborate on "no joy"? What exactly are YOU seeing with regard to G73/G83, something similar to what I was seeing or something else?

And no SS in your equation.

Hmm....indeed.

I'm at my part time University job this morning so not in my shop, but will be looking forward to any development here!

442

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 16, 2010, 07:46:55 AM »

I never considered this, but I'm currently on the v16bd plugin Greg posted somewhere in a noise discussion. I could go back to v15ogx2 and see if that makes a difference. Won't be this morning, but later today.

The catch is why only with MSM? I'm still suspecting a corrupted XML. No idea how an XML could get corrupted like that, only affecting peck drilling, but stranger things have probably happened! I will create a new profile later today and see if that fixes the issue.

443

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 15, 2010, 08:53:31 PM »

The catch here is if one wants to use MSM, one needs the dev version of Mach3, so that leaves out the .032 and .033 and .040 lockdowns.

And I have peck drilling working fine on MSM/Mach3 v3.043.022/PP, so it isn't like it's a peck drilling thing for me as I've been peck drilling all along.

I think the next thing I'll try is cloning my working 1024/SS profile that seems to work and making a new MSM profile and see if somehow the profile/XML is hosed. Don't know what else to try until Dave chimes in with a tip or 2!!

444

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 15, 2010, 08:15:01 PM »

This is going to be a tough sell, Dave, but here goes.

I spent half the afternoon creating profiles for MSM/PP, MSM/SS, 1024/PP, and 1024/SS, all on Mach3 v3.43.22. Both 1024 profiles created from scratch from Mach3Mill and all settings entered from scratch. I have Mach3 directories for both SS profiles and PP profiles so there's no cross pollution, SS plugin isn't even IN the PP profile directories.

All the profiles work with G73, exact same gcode in all instances, EXCEPT MSM/SS. MSM/PP works fine, and both 1024 profiles work fine. To convince myself, I ran the test in both 1024 profiles then restarted everything and ran the MSM/SS profile and the problem was the same as I had earlier.

I have no clue what this is, I hope you do!! I don't know if there could be something in my MSM/PP profile setup that's causing this somehow. I can't imagine what it would be except perhaps G73 pullback, but this happens with G83 also, a full retract peck cycle, so the pullback wouldn't come into play here. I DID try .050 and .1 G73 pullback with no change in behavior. It seems that on the second peck it doesn't feed at all, but stays put then retracts the retract amount from there, higher, then does it again. It's hard to tell, because when it's done and it's supposed to be an Z.1, it's some odd amount around 5/8" above the part. Each consecutive hole it gets worse, stopping higher off the part but with Z DRO reading .1.

I know this sounds insane, but I just burned myself out testing and this is what I see!!

Tom

445

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 15, 2010, 05:50:27 PM »

Care to try the same mach rev (3.43.22 I assume) with 1024 on PP and SS?

I'd have to refigure out how to get to 1024. I'd probably have to start from Mach3Mill and redo my entire setup unless you have a good shortcut!!! Remember, during the probing thing, I started completely OVER, then even rebuilt my box with a PMDX-125 and stuff. 1024, bah!!

I'm certainly not blaming MSM, so you're saying it must be in 3.43.022 and not in lockdown, or any rev. prior to dev. versions?

Tom

446

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: G73/G83

« on: September 15, 2010, 05:29:46 PM »

Switched to PP, problem went away! G73 peck drill holes all afternoon.

So........yet another SS issue, with MSM apparently. I never had this issue running SS on 1024 in the past. I almost always peck drill holes.

Sigh.......after the probing thing, now this, I'm beginning to wonder why I keep trying to use the SS. As of this minute, I'm done. I'll stay on PP until the next urge hits me, like when Dave/Brian ask if I'll test the LATEST FIX!!

If I have to give up one thing, SS or MSM, SS is outta here!! My setup runs just ducky on pp at 60K, so ramming my head into a wall is just entertainment.

BTW, I have entire directories setup, so rename, shut everything off, swap cables SS/PP, and I'm able to go either way!!! SS is mounted inside computer case with 26 pin to DB25 backplane cables. Minor hassle at update time, have to do it twice with the renaming and such, but not a large problem.

Tom

447

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / G73/G83

« on: September 15, 2010, 04:35:30 PM »

Not sure if this is an MSM issue, SS issue, both combined, or what.

Today I tried to drill a bunch of holes with G73. The hole was only a couple pecks, 3 maybe. It seemed to do one peck, not to the correct depth, retract up too far, peck again to HIGHER than the first one, retract HIGHER yet. When it was done, Z said +.100, the R plane, but it was 3/4" above the part. Each hole got worse, Z saying .100, and it was higher each hole!! WCO G54 Z was still what it was, TLO for T6 was still what it was, but the tool was NOT where it should have been. Only way out was re reference Z even though WCO Z did NOT change before or after referencing!! Set G73 Pull Back .1 and .05, same result although the numbers may have been different WRT depth and retract.

Tried G83, same result.

Drilled the holes with G81 just fine, no peck.

Haven't tried 1024 screen or PP instead of SS. Not sure what to try or what's going on.

Here is a sample of my G-code:

O1
G90 G80 G40 G17
T6 M6
(TOOL 6)
(17/64 DRILL)
(OPERATION 2)
G0 G90 G54 X-8.625 Y-0.375 M3 S1400
G43 Z1. H6
G0 Z0.1
G73 G98 X-8.625 Y-0.375 Z-0.4798 Q0.2 R0.1 F8.0
Y-3.8125
X-5.1875
......
......
 
This has worked with 1024 screens for years, so it isn't the code.

Tom

448

General Mach Discussion / Re: I know XP works but I am seeing that W7 does not work so well with Mach

« on: September 15, 2010, 01:12:21 PM »

Thanks again you guys, much appreciated.
Yes, I need the parallel port as I am running the HobbyCNC kit so I need the Home Premium version of W7.
I shall see if BestBuy has what I need,
Thanks again,
Tom

You don't NEED the Home Premium version of W7. Any version availble on a PC will work fine. What you NEED is a computer with a parallel port, increasingly hard to find now days. You can easily add a PCI parallel card, however. The issue with any PC, it seems, is how well it'll run Mach3 drivertest.exe. Some seem to run fine, some not. My Core i3 wouldn't run it well, so I never even tried parallel port on that one. It ran fine with SmoothStepper.

449

General Mach Discussion / Re: I know XP works but I am seeing that W7 does not work so well with Mach

« on: September 15, 2010, 09:14:10 AM »

Windows 7 Home Premium 32 bit is working very well here for me. I've run it on two computers actually running machines and a couple other Win7 machines for testing and have had zero problems that could be attributed to Windows 7.

I currently run my BP clone on Win7 on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ with 2GB and have run PP and SmoothStepper, works great. I ran on a new Intel Core I3 530 with a PCI-E add-on parallel port and that one wouldn't run Drivertest.exe well so I abandoned it although it ran fine with the SmoothStepper.

All in all, I think Windows 7 is fine.

450

CVI MachStdMill (MSM) / Re: Mach3 General Config.

« on: September 06, 2010, 07:38:36 AM »

Oops, I meant "versions", not reasons!! Has anyone ever figured out how typing fingers DO this?

Another thing, Steve. Dave said MSM always worked with the General Config settings any which way. He was just trying for some consistancy for support. After a while he saw he wasn't having any problems with General Config settings, so he dropped it from the setup document. The traffic on this thread has dropped to near nothing, so either MSM is pretty good, or no one is using it!! We hope for the former, eh, Dave?? In MY case anyway, it's good!! I can't imagine using 1024 screens any longer.