Messages

831

VB and the development of wizards / Re: Use SystemWaitFor / IsActive ? And what about negative ToolLengthOffset ?

« on: August 07, 2015, 02:41:44 AM »

I don't think that is going to happen. Once a move has started the ONLY thing you can do is feedhold or STOP. The feedhold will NOT be imediate and the stop while imidiate will loss position because all it does is shut off the pulses to the drive so basically anything in the buffer is lost.

NOW that said it IS possible to do a commanded stop from an input. You would USE the G31 call for motion and teh trip signal would cause it to stop as fast as possible and NOT loose position. The limitaion of the G31 is that you can ONLY do straightline moves in XY or Z. NO arcs.

Hope that helps, (;-) TP

832

General Mach Discussion / Re: M3 and safety stop

« on: August 07, 2015, 02:32:32 AM »

OK it is SS you need to go their website and ask the question.

833

General Mach Discussion / Re: Perfect Lathe threading

« on: August 06, 2015, 08:17:51 PM »

Actually one can do THAT magic trick with Mach3 IF you are very very clever.

Just a thought, (;-) TP

834

General Mach Discussion / Re: M3 and safety stop

« on: August 06, 2015, 06:43:54 PM »

SURE, you can turn OFF all those SAFETY functions .

(;-) TP

835

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Dual Channel Output TP

« on: August 06, 2015, 01:19:38 PM »

OK it is going to depend on HOW you define interact between the 2 sets . It would be simple IF each set ran as a seperate unit just use a controller that allowed a download to ram for each of the FPGA's Heck you could have 6 if you wanted. Then a timed signal to start.  The tool changes would be controlled from a PLC (hard or soft)for each unit.  They would NOT have to run the same program for each unit it could be a progressive line where each stage is a a continuing process to a part . 

IF you mean being able to control up to 6 or more control sets in sets of 3-4 BUT not all 3 sets of 3 axis at teh same time YES compilcated but yes it is possible from a single Mach3 . BUT I certainly would not want to have to write the Gcode for that beast. Well actually that would be a Cool one to do. Just would not want to do it every day. 

NOW if you mean 2 totally interactive units that ran coordinated actions as a unit NOPE that takes a LOT of HP CPU wise( mulitple cpu's running parrallel)

(;-) TP

836

FAQs / Re: CNC will not go home

« on: August 05, 2015, 09:39:38 PM »

It is just the word THE. My brain has a crossed wire some where it thinks a H is an E and an E is an H.



(;-) TP

837

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Dual Channel Output TP

« on: August 05, 2015, 09:11:08 PM »

Need more data ? Gotta sketch

(;-) TP

838

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 not for sale in a year or so ???

« on: August 05, 2015, 09:06:26 PM »

I don't think that a ConWiz   ( conversation Wizard) is going to be a Problem(;-) Created with C# SharpSolution Form Builder and models the M4 version.

(;-) TP

839

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 not for sale in a year or so ???

« on: August 05, 2015, 04:31:38 PM »

YOU could add insult to injury and USE the MachMillWizards to generate your UCcnc Gcode (;-).

(;-) TP

840

G-Code, CAD, and CAM discussions / Re: Tangential CAM program

« on: August 05, 2015, 03:29:42 PM »

What version are you running ?? I understand the need to simpify this for the OPs  and having to RECAM everything to make it work is well just wrong. THere ARE other control options that the Tang control does work correctly.

(;-) TP