Messages

1

General Mach Discussion / Re: Multiple MPG - Can this be done ?

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:44:49 PM »

After thinking about it . the encoder count woudn't really mean anything because of ball screw pitch and pulley reductions etc. etc.
One thing I did discover is there is a direct correlation between the encoder counts and the achievable jog speed.

Its quite amazing the things you learn by tinkering with kind of stuff.

2

General Mach Discussion / Re: Multiple MPG - Can this be done ?

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:34:21 PM »

I did build an MPG by using a 100 c.p.r. encoder and it works great , nice and smooth but it did take alot of time to make sense out of the Mach settings.
The MPG I built does have detents, but like you mentioned......just one "bump" of your hand or something else and there goes the farm...

3

General Mach Discussion / Re: Multiple MPG - Can this be done ?

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:25:53 PM »

So you've accomlished this already which is great news......does it work well and did you have to make detents to keep the handwheel from moving accidentally?
What encoder count did you end up using?

4

General Mach Discussion / Re: Multiple MPG - Can this be done ?

« on: May 14, 2014, 07:06:47 PM »

Ya know after I posted the original message I did have a realization that I did at one time remember that there were multiple MPG's configurable
under ports and pins. I do believe that thats exactly how multiple MPG's might be addressed.

Its really cool to have a CNC but ALOT of times I just need to square up blocks and do manual mill type type work.

Im going to attempt to build encoder driven handwheels ..... Ill keep everyone informed .

BTW I only have 2 hands ..... but a well trained "third member" if ya know what I mean .......hahaha

5

General Mach Discussion / Multiple MPG - Can this be done ?

« on: May 14, 2014, 05:23:57 PM »

All,

I have the desire to attach a handwheel with encoders to the "X" , "Y" and "Z" axis of my mill in an attempt to create a "manual type" machine.
I know thats not a hard thing to do physically , but is there a way to do it and enable all axis to allow MPG input without having to select the axis in Mach first ?

It would be a real pain to have to select the an axis to move in Mach then turn an axis handle, stop , then select another axis in Mach then turn the handle etc . etc.

Hope this is explained well enough, any ideas sure would help

Thanks

6

General Mach Discussion / Re: Cutter Comp Bug ??? , can someone take a look

« on: September 04, 2013, 02:03:10 PM »

How many programmers are there writing Mach, just Brian?

7

General Mach Discussion / Re: Cutter Comp Bug ??? , can someone take a look

« on: September 04, 2013, 07:00:27 AM »

I haven't been a regular follower of the site for quite some time but what is the current status of Mach4 ? Is there any information about a release dates or
a timeframe of when it might be available ?

8

General Mach Discussion / Re: Cutter Comp Bug ??? , can someone take a look

« on: September 03, 2013, 08:12:17 PM »

Ya know guys you have to forgive me but Ive use Mach since 2004 and for the life of me I dont understand why Mach is being updated to Mach4 without a solid foundation to build on. It seems to me that this is a fundamental function that is really needed by most people. I'm not trying to degrade Mach in any way because its afforded me the ability to machine parts with minimal expense but it seems as though there may be alot of emphasis on other things when the core funciionality needs to be fixed. Is there any plans to fix this bug before I get priced out of Mach4 ?

9

General Mach Discussion / Re: Cutter Comp Bug ??? , can someone take a look

« on: September 02, 2013, 10:57:18 PM »

Maybe I should have said Tool Table Diameter (D) , Check out the attachment

10

General Mach Discussion / Cutter Comp Bug ??? , can someone take a look

« on: September 02, 2013, 10:29:05 PM »

Could someone load this sample file and step through it to verify that cutter comp is sometimes being applied during a linear move progressively from the start point
to the end point ?

Set your tool diameter offset to .010" for tool number one then step through and compare the program values to the actual DRO values.

Thanks