Hello Guest it is March 29, 2024, 08:39:58 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CDyckes

Pages: « 1 2 3 »
11
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 30, 2007, 04:53:05 AM »
Brian,

Just tried it with version 2.00.067. Better, but the error has moved to the final line of the outer cut and has an error of +0.60mm :(  I don't use any cutter compensation at all.



On a Lazycam related issue. The file I sent you does a rapid plunge to -1.5 (start depth) followed by a feed to -3 before each cut.  I tried this setting as if I set a start depth of 0 then Lazycam generated a pass a 0 height before doing it's first feed to -1.5.  I've tried various settings and the rapid/plunge settings seems a little strange, especially for arcs.  Is this use error, or something that needs optimising? I have RTFM but it's not clear what's needed here.

EDIT:  Test project zip file added to show rapid/feed z moves

Thx


12
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 29, 2007, 11:27:34 AM »
Thanks Brian.  I assume that's a new rev of Mach3 as opposed to lazycam as the Gcode looked OK?




13
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 29, 2007, 10:49:39 AM »
Graham, I'll give it a try.

Brian, I agree, but I don't use tool diameter compensation but do think it's a toolpath error.  I measured the excess move as 0.89mm but that could easily have been 1mm (2mm cutter but also diameter of top small hole) when cut. Strange as it didn't happen on an earlier iteration.  Possibly the vertical move from the small hole to the top horizontal line being miscalculated in Mach3 but correct values showing on displays???

Final article (after judicious use of a file :)    )

two of these:-



and one of these:-



plus one of these:-



which started life as an old audio power amp case (back panel now modified)

make up an 8x230W per channel high-end audio Home Theatre amp from commercial modules.

Would have been quicker to use a saw and drill press, but much more satisfying to use CNC toys :) :) :)






14
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 28, 2007, 09:29:47 AM »
Graham,

Thanks, but that doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the original. Does it check anything in particular?

I've looked in more detail at the G-code for my job and the displays while the job is running and everything looks OK. I'd suspect a backlash problem, but a number of other similar jobs have cut without problem, including a subsequent one cutting a smaller section of the original.  The error on the positioning for the start of the outside cut at top centre is +0.89mm - i.e. Mach3 has moved the table by an additional 0.89mm over and above what it says on the displays, but it sorts itself out by the time it finishes cutting the outer rectangle which is perfect other than this first segment. I think the fact that the Y co-ord sorts itself out by the time it has reached the top right hand arc on the corner eliminates the backlash possibility (plus there are no scuff marks on the material at the plunge point??

Beginning to think this is more Mach3 related than Lazycam.

Don't get me wqrong though; both are BRILLIANT products suited to beginners and experts alike!!


15
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:49:55 AM »
One other point: I've never worked out how to use tool compensation so all drawings allow for the width of the cutter (2mmm end mill).  Must learn tool size compensation one day :)


16
LazyCam (Beta) / Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:47:28 AM »
Working extremely well since using the 3GHz P4 PC in the lounge (very tolerant girlfriend). Possibly biggest display yet (65" plasma)   :)



Having a minor toolpath problem with another simple object. The top line should be straight, but the start point (top centre) is too high and adjusts to the correct height by the end of the segment.



Previous items with this sort of toolpath have cut correctly, the workpiece hasn't moved, and the problem is repeatable.  Zip file containing the Lcam project, dxf and tap file is attached.




17
I think I may have found that my problem is actually caused by running on too slow a machine.  I'm trying to run on an old 300MHz laptop that used to run Mach2RC6 perfectly, but I suspect is having problems with Mach3.  It works better if I run from the 'Diagnostics' screen (lees overheads?), but still graunchs occasionally.

Guess I'll have to use a faster machine, but my Dell 9300 doesn't have a parallel port

I'm in the 'lazy' camp, having used solidworks and real cam in the past but now just wanting a simple 2 1/2D from DXF route.  I just used the output that Lazycam gave me.  Out of interest, Lazycam seems to do the first pass of a circle at height of 0 (top of material) before plunging for subsequent cuts.

Anyone know of a USB or Cardbus parallel port adapter that will work with Mach3 for my notebook, or do I need a real parallel port?

Thx


18
LazyCam (Beta) / Re: Problem in arcs in Lazycam?
« on: April 25, 2007, 01:47:20 PM »
Graham, Thanks for the reply.  I don't know if that's a problem, but I think I may have found that my problem is actually caused by running on too slow a machine.  I'm trying to run on an old 300MHz laptop that used to run Mach2RC6 perfectly, but I suspect is having problems with Mach3.  It works better if I run from the 'Diagnostics' screen (lees overheads?), but still graunchs occasionally.

Guess I'll have to use a faster machine, but my Dell 9300 doesn't have a parallel port :(

I'm in the 'lazy' camp, having used solidworks and real cam in the past but now just wanting a simple 2 1/2D from DXF route.  I just used the output that Lazycam gave me.  Out of interest, Lazycam seems to do the first pass of a circle at height of 0 (top of material) before plunging for subsequent cuts.

Anyone know of a USB or Cardbus parallel port adapter that will work with Mach3 for my notebook?

Thx



19
LazyCam (Beta) / Problem in arcs in Lazycam?
« on: April 25, 2007, 12:02:10 PM »
Hi

Brett suggested I cross post a problem I'm having with a Lazycam processed DXF file. Very simple rectangular part (metric) with 4 small holes and 8 larger ones. The first small hole cuts perfectly, but the next (larger) one causes the steppers to go berserk about half way around the circle almost oscillating to-and-fro rather than describing the arc.  Pretty certain machine setup is correct as I can jog and rapid move with no problems.

I get the same problem even if I'm 'cutting air' rather than material.

I've used Mach2RC6 as my previous version but always via a commercial modelling and toolpath generation program but wanted to try lazycam (even bought a license :)   ) for simple 2 1/2D work. Loading the .tap file into Mach2 gives an error message "Radius to end of arc differs from radius to start" on line N125 which causes the problem.

the .dxf and the .tap file (metric) are attached. .Lcam files don't seem to be uploadable.

Anyone seen anything similar?


20
Replied by PM and :-

Tried to Skype you but just get a 'blocked' message.

top of workpiece is zero. 1st circle is indeed cut at 0 (probably fault in Lazycam). Units are in MM. No backlash comp.

Interestingly, if I try to load the file in Mach2 then it gives an error message on line N125 saying "Radius to end of arc differs from radius to start".

Pages: « 1 2 3 »