thanks , I have been copying and pasting the entire macro folder when updating , instead of just copying the oiler and tool changer macro . Thanks again , will update and give it a whirl

That shouldnt be in the macro folder I dont think, should be in C:\Mach3, there could well be one in the macro folder but I dont think it will get used.
Hood

Better hang fire there, just checked and it seems it is the one in the macro folder that is used, I was thinking it was the same as the lathe threading in that it is the one in the main Mach3 folder.
 Will go and compare them on my computer .
Hood

Ok it seems that your one may well have been correct  as it is the same as the one in the macro folder, so I dont know why yours is not working correctly.
 Have you tried just the G83 on its own?
Hood

no big deal on the decimal point thing , if this were my project I would welcome constructive advice on how to better things, I get the impression that alot of folks would rather get defensive and explain things away than be open minded and consider another viewpoint  , my apologies for even bringing it up.

FWIW, I agree with your assessment. 'Fanboy' mentality is always a detriment to progress on any product. In my brief experience here, the authors of the software seem very interested in constructive criticism, which is really what matters. It makes perfact sense to improve Mach's compatibility with commercial software by doing something as simple as including a decimal in numbers, which should have been there already.

Non-programmers may not understand how lines get parsed or how numbers get interpreted. G-code is interpreted, so each line gets parsed as text. The parser is looking for the decimal in any numeric value. If there is not trap for the absence of a decimal (and why would there be?) then the parser faults. No software has a trap for every conceivable entry error, including Mach, which has no traps for obvious basic errors in calling external subroutines. So faulting other software for not having traps that it really should not need anyway, makes no sense to me. But that's just my opinion others may disagree. 

I vote that your suggestion was valid, constructive and well worth a look see from the authors if they seek to step up their game.

Hi All,
The "Feature Request" section would be an appropriate place for any suggestion. Title it well and maybe also provide some background as to the why. Feel free to post anything you think would be an improvement to Mach.
Then those responsible can consider your suggestion.This way there should be no misunderstanding as to the content of the posting.

I think it fair to say, that in reading something, the mind set may be to look for a problem in Mach, wonder if someone needs assistence with Mach, or maybe requires some understanding on Mach, or seeks the experience of another. How the posting is presented makes a difference as to the reponse.

Just a reflection,
RICH

Good point Rich, I did probably post my observations in the wrong section , they just popped into my mind while typing my g83 question and I thought I would share them. I am in no way trying to find any faults with mach or the wizards .  I also wasnt refering to anyone thats posted openly with my other comment, but was responding to a couple of very nasty emails blasting me for pointing out something that I thought was a conerstone of basic geometry , the decimal point.

Hood I still cant get g83 to drill to the proper depths, anything I try under 1" drills to the proper depth but when I call out a depth over 1." it drills to some depth short of that dimension .

Could you zero your machine back some safe distance from the chuck and run a peck drill cycle something like g83 q.o5 z-2.2 f4.00 r.2  and watch your dro and see if it actualy drills to the full 2.2" ? On my machine this will drill to 1.6" depth perfectly but not the 2.2"  No hurry just curious if I am the only one having this problem  . I dont seem to have any problem if I keep the pecks (q) to .1" or greater or the total depth to 1" or less but the above string just seems to be problamatic

RT
 I did do exactly that the last day on my lathe to make sure it did work. However I have my machine set in metric so I was using metric dimensions. I had the peck at 10mm and depth at 100mm and it did exactly that.
Seems though you may be onto something with the small peck, I will try out tomorrow with a peck of 1mm and see if I get the problem, if not I will do a G20 and try your code.


Hood

Pana...m,

I also use a SS and just ran your code:    G83 Z-2.2 R.2 Q.05 F4.0
It drilled to the full 2.2  ( I had the carriage pushing a square along a scale for a physical  double check).

I have the following for an initialization string in my config on start up:
G18 G20 G40 G49 G80 G90 G94

Now before running that code via the MDI line, I  Zero World X &Z, set home, and part zero X&Z thus no offsets
exist,etc.. to eliminate any influence that could exist.

I copied the M1083 from  macros\MachTurn\ to the macro directory i use for the SS. Using Mach3 ver .027 here and
.....v015ogb.dll for the SS plugin.

So it dosen't seem to be problematic here. Haven't used G83 all that much.
RICH

RT
 Yes there is definitely an issue with short peck distance. I have tried both metric and imperial and get the problem.
You can quite clearly see it if you edit your m1083.m1s macro to
Test = True
Look at the code and you will see the final depth.
If I had the peck at 5mm then it was fine, went to z-55 like it was meant to but if I put the peck at 1 then it only goes to z-27

Will talk to Brian about it when I see him online.
Hood