Messages

141

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Call G91 sub from G90 main program?

« on: March 03, 2014, 09:42:20 AM »

Is it possible to call and use a subroutine that uses incremental (G91) programming, from a main program that uses absolute (G90) programming? Or aternatively, can I specify some parts of the main program as G90 and some as G91?

142

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / M98 - M99 loop with M00 in

« on: March 03, 2014, 09:06:44 AM »

I'm not able to get to my machine to test this, but I've been trying to figure out a way of doing a subroutine, and having the machine stop temporarily afterwards, to give the user the option of either repeating the subroutine or continuing through the main code. So far I've come up with this:-

o0001
g21
g90
g64
g00 a2 f2500
m06 t001
g00 x0 y20
m98 p0002
m00
g01 x10 etc...

o0001
g01 a0.5 z120
g01 a0
g01 a0.2
m99

The idea being that the user can manually select and run from either the line 'm98 p0002' to repeat the routine, or the line 'g01 a0.2' to continue through the code.

Is this a normal way of achieving this? I've used lower case here to distinguish between 'o' and '0'.

Thanks

143

NC Pod / Re: Pod not recognised?

« on: March 10, 2011, 05:20:00 PM »

Okay, thanks Andrew. I have the 32 bit system, so it isn't the problem. I will at least download the new firmware, and keep it on file, although the pod is sidelined for the foreseeable future. Thanks, though.

Richard B

144

NC Pod / Re: Pod not recognised?

« on: February 16, 2011, 11:46:51 AM »

It's unresolved. Got fed up with lack of support generally for the Pod, and have gone to using 2 parallel ports and breakout boards instead.

But if anyone knows how to solve the problem, it would be handy; in case at some point I end up using the pod for something other than a paper weight.

Rich B

145

General Mach Discussion / Re: pdmx 122 configure for mach

« on: January 23, 2011, 01:14:13 PM »

Knew I'd left something out. I've attached the image from the manual, this time...!

Rich B

146

General Mach Discussion / Re: pdmx 122 configure for mach

« on: January 23, 2011, 01:10:31 PM »

Thanks both,

I'm using the status inputs on both boards for home and limit plus a supplementary signal, so J 1-4 on both boards will be step and direction only. So both boards need to be set to output only mode?  If I set the boards as both output only, I can still use inputs to the status input pins, can't I?

I just want to have a manual E stop button that stops the machine when I hit it, all the status inputs usable, and my six step/dir and (+5v) common's all working.... is the picture in the manual showing how to connect up gecko drivers the right one to let me do this? (My drivers need step, dir, and +5V for their optos.) If so, I'll happily just copy the jumper settings on that diagram, instead of trying to understand it... Not sure if I need the charge pump;- does enabling the charge pump in Mach increase the load on the CPU much?

Also, as I have E stop capability on both boards, should I wire the E stop button to both boards, so as to disable both data buses at the same time? Or would that produce the same effect as just applying the E stop signal to only one board? Bearing in mind I have 6 axes, 4 on one board and 2 of the 4 on the second one. I'm thinking it would be good to free one of the Estop pins up to use as another input, in case the need arises.

Thanks,

Rich B
 

147

General Mach Discussion / pdmx 122 configure for mach

« on: January 23, 2011, 08:23:52 AM »

Hi, I've bought my 2 breakout boards, looking through the literature that came with them, I can't work out if I should set jp5 to "1 to2" to configure it as o/p only, or "2 to 3" so it's controlled from the "-select in" signal from the PP. Which is normal for Mach 3 on XP sp3?
Ta!
Rich B

148

General Mach Discussion / Re: parallel cable for mach 3 and parallel port... pin out and port info?

« on: January 15, 2011, 03:22:35 PM »

I was thinking that if the outboard ends of the parallel to IDC interfaces had a mounting plate on them, bolted to the casing, it would mean the cables wouldn't be pulling against the breaker board itself if I ever accidentally move the pc without checking whether the cables are disconnected... I have to make allowances for my own daftness when I build anything!

149

General Mach Discussion / Re: parallel cable for mach 3 and parallel port... pin out and port info?

« on: January 15, 2011, 02:26:00 PM »

Thanks rrc,

I thought the pins would have to map 1:1.
The breakout boardshave sockets for IDC26 and what I guess is a 36 pin centronics (see photo attached.) I think I'll use the male to male cables and buy 2 db25 to IDC26 interfaces. That way I don't ave to pll cables apart.

Richard B

150

General Mach Discussion / parallel cable for mach 3 and parallel port... pin out and port info?

« on: January 15, 2011, 08:26:25 AM »

Hi,

Just got my pmdx 122 breakout boards, only to find that the cable connectors are female... so the male to male cables I bought are no good.
I have 2 25 pin to 36 pin printer cables, one of which is the type where you can disassemble the 25 pin end, and resolder the pins in whatever order you want.

For Mach I need 'straight through' cables, right? does that mean pin 1 to pin 1, right up to pin 25 to pin 25, and then 10 empty pins from 26 to 36 on the male end? My standard printer cable connects as per below; is this not suitable?

18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10   9    8    7   6    5    4   3    2   1                 
36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  27  26  25  24  23  22  21  20  19

13  12  11  10   9    8    7    6   5    4    3    2   1
   25  24  23  22  21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14   


DB25  Centronics

1       13
2       12
3       11
4       10
5       9
6       8
7       7
8       6
9       5
10     4
11     3
12     2
13     1
14     25
15     33
16     32
17     36
18     34
19     19
20     21
21     23
22     25
23     27
24     29
25     31   

If I've got the pin order on either of the top diagrams wrong, please let me know, and I'll correct them and rewrite the pins table, so it makes sense...

Richard B