Messages

1351

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 08:04:06 AM »

Hmm, but the DRO's on screen work fine from the encoder inputs when Mach is out of reset, surely it could just be wired as axis A using the fourth DRO on-screen??

I must have my simplistic glasses on today and probably missed the point by a mile or so.

To make this work, I need an encoder to be connected to a screen DRO no?

1352

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 07:32:31 AM »

It might work but only with Mach in reset.

Think of it - as i have it now, with Mach in reset I can spin the motors by hand and the DRO's all dance merrily around - I think this is what we're after with the height setter?

BUT put mach in run mode and an encoder input without commanded motor move would throw an ePid fault i think.

I reckon it will work, what is in the behind the scenes stuff - macro's etc?

1353

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 06:55:18 AM »

Ah, no, i was thinking just input via one of the spare encoder channels?

Also just found a bunch of these, basic linear movement rails, adjustable for slack, pretty smooth, would work ok i think.

1354

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 06:47:08 AM »

Here it is, new in box, only 600 ppr but voltage will match the CSMIO ok.

1355

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 05:17:44 AM »

As you say, the glass scale is neater, but i do have an encoder floating about somewhere, would just need a short linear guide of some sort.

Will bear it in mind

1356

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 04:34:40 AM »

Yes, i think it all relies upon the Zdro being zeroed, i didn't do this yesterday as i presumed the G31 would read the machine dro, I will verify tonight.

Your suggestion is what i wanted t o do - use tool zero as TOM setting with Haimer and all tools are relative to that setting then as that is how they would be measured.

I like your setter but i think there is a big void between your usage levels and my mini-usage level at present

What is the reading device you used?

1357

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 03:51:46 AM »

Yes I realise your version is good Hood, but i have to work with what i have - don't forget i am on R8 tooling so need to measure each tool in the spindle.

Rcaffin - what i am trying to do is get a reference point - I use the Haimer to read a point on the table - in my case the top of the touch-plate, then i note the Zm DRO - this gives me a fixed point WRT the Haimer.

Now, replace the Haimer with a tool, and do a G31 to the touch-plate, now read the Zm again - there will be a difference, an offset, that difference is what i need in the tool table so that whenever I use the Haimer to find TOM, I know that the offset will be the same and whatever tool i fit will be zero on the TOM.

Its just finding differences thats all, but to work it must use the Zm not Zw, I need to know when the G31 hits the plate and sets #2002 does it set it with ZM or Zw ??

There is a world of difference here as if it is Zw it will not work unless the Z DRO is zeroed properly - this needs testing as it would explain things a little more.

1358

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 19, 2016, 02:32:28 AM »

Hmmm, i don't doubt the table really, its just a table after all, more a case of garbage in, garbage out.

When i change tools, i am doing it manually - i just enter the tool number in the "Current tool" DRO and hit enter - the Z DRO changes so i presume it is calling the G43H** itself. I have not tried it from code yet as i have only run one little tiny job so far - I need to understand and trust the system before i start throwing jobs at it.

The task seems simple to me - cut away all the crap and the code is just a couple of lines - set a reference Z (in machine coords, lets call it Zm) using my Haimer against the the touch plate. Then store the Zm value in a variable. Next you replace the Haimer with a tool and do a G31 probe fast, followed by a 1mm lift followed by a G31 slow, at that point you read Var 2002 which is the Zm at the point the probe hit the plate, do a simple sum and bobs your uncle - you now have the tool offset. Bung it in the tool table and off you go.

Now, is the Var2002 taken from MachineZ or WorkZ ?? This is vital so does anyone know?? If it is WorkZ then thats the answer as there is no point comparing Zm with Zw - it all must be Zm.

Anyone know for sure?

1359

General Mach Discussion / Re: Tool Offset Macro...

« on: August 18, 2016, 01:45:42 PM »

Well, I have no idea of what I am doing wrong or what is going on here but i have bugger all trust in the tool-table at the moment

I wanted to modify a vise jaw tonight, just a simple half-round groove and the first job on the mill. Thinking I might do it properly from the start, i set my z zero with the Haimer, run the tool setting macro as before, inserted the ball-nosed tool and its holder, finished the setting routine, gave it a name etc.

Then I thought it best to double-check so i set the Z zero on the workpiece using the Haimer, inserted the tool, entered tool 1 in the current tool box on screen, inched it down to Z zero and f*&k me if it wasn't a good 25-30mm high

Tool table showed something like -16mm for that tool.

I run the job using manual Z setting with a slip of paper under the tool.

Then i re-run the set routine on another tool number(same tool) and the tool table showed something like +36mm and the tool ended up even further above the work.

SO, either I am being a twat, or something is wrong in the world here??

The code i am running is the same as CS-LABS code and the same as many other G31 probing routines.

Any ideas at all, i really want the tool table as I have splashed a lot of cash on tool-holders specifically so i can set the Z once per job and then switch tools easily.

1360

General Mach Discussion / Re: Bridgeport Knee Mill Conversion?

« on: August 18, 2016, 09:17:01 AM »

After studying the ancient scrolls for a while, something like this might do it...

N1 T1 M06
N2 G90 G54 G00 x-20 Y-15
N3 S460 M03
N4 G43 H01 Z2 M08
N5 G01 Z-11 F500
N6 G41 X-3.75 P12.70 F60
N7 Y3.75
N8 X3.75
N9 Y-3.75
N10 X-3.75
N11 Y2.75
N12 X2.75
N13 Y-2.75
N14 X-2.75
N15 G40 X-20
N16 Y20
N17 G0 Z10 M09
N18 G53 G49 M05
M30