Hello Guest it is May 23, 2019, 02:02:34 PM

Author Topic: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..  (Read 12907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris.Botha

*
  •  486 486
  • wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...
    • View Profile
    • Digital-Jeweller
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2009, 09:25:25 PM »
nope cv is on at 0.06, changing that value to 0.5 made no difference either

was the first thing i tried
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2009, 05:42:48 PM »
Thought it might have been a bit obvious. Unless the code itself is overriding Mach3's settings with a G61 command at the top? Apart from that I'm stumped.

Offline Chris.Botha

*
  •  486 486
  • wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...
    • View Profile
    • Digital-Jeweller
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2009, 06:04:29 PM »
here is the posted initialisation code

G17 G21 G40 G49 G64 G90 G94

G64 maybe? but cant think that would affect it like this?
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2009, 07:24:50 PM »
Wouldn't think that was it, G64 puts it explicitly in CV mode. :( Wierd, all round.

Offline Chris.Botha

*
  •  486 486
  • wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...
    • View Profile
    • Digital-Jeweller
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2009, 08:02:14 PM »
my mill manufacturer, MiniTech has some guys on it. will have some answers soon i hope.

will feedback once i hear

Offline Chris.Botha

*
  •  486 486
  • wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...
    • View Profile
    • Digital-Jeweller
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2009, 12:24:33 AM »
two guys have tested that code and apparently not had issues.. they both have ballscrews with half the tpi of my mill so half the work to get the same distance. i may try reducing my microstepping from 10 to 5 to equal their machines..

last resort...

vmax549

*
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #36 on: September 09, 2009, 10:18:08 AM »
THat could very well solve the issue. When Mach is running wide open funny things seems to happen in windows. IT could also be a LPT port issue, Not all port have the same transfer rates. I have seen from 1.5MB per sec all the way to 4 mb per sec transfer rates.

(;-0 TP

Offline Jeff_Birt

*
  •  1,107 1,107
    • View Profile
    • Soigeneris
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2009, 10:56:30 AM »
As I mentioned before it is an issue with trying to get Mach/Windows to do too many things at once; the LPT driver simply can't update at the higher pulse rate while Mach is trying to juggle an enormous file. So you have to do some arc filtering on the file to get rid of millions of 0.001" moves or reduce the pulse rate or go with an external pulse generator.
Happy machining , Jeff Birt
 

Offline Chris.Botha

*
  •  486 486
  • wine me.. dine me.. tram my mill for me...
    • View Profile
    • Digital-Jeweller
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2009, 06:12:08 AM »
ok so if this application cant do arc fitting can i get another application to do this? can i buy a backplotter/arc fitter application for example?

anyone got an idea of something that does that. the reason i ask this is because while this application does not have arcs it has a supremely programmable interface allowing me to automate path generation significantly.. if i have to add another step to arc fit im happy to do it.



vmax549

*
Re: Do i need a bigger pc for mach..
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM »
Chris what software are you using to generate the code? . Last time I made inquires into the micro coding problem I was told it was WAY TOO COMPLEX to deal with on a simple( low cost)  level. They ALL said the same thing(;-) 

YOU have made a good point on machine resolution that MANY manf of comercial CNC machines design into the machine. THEY do not use any more resolution than is need to maintain the accuracy of that machine. THat takes the unneed load off of the CPU.

I fall into the same thing at 40,000 steps per unit just to do .001" accuracy. I am using way more resources than what is needed to do the job(;-) BUT this is a test machine designed to run mach hard for testing purposes (;-)

SO how did changing the microsteps turn out??

(;-) TP
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 05:13:44 PM by vmax549 »