Hello Guest it is May 26, 2019, 02:16:24 AM

Author Topic: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update  (Read 20009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2009, 12:30:36 PM »
And you will not publish this modifications, right?
So other users would benefit of more tools in Mach ;)

It is a good idea, for sure, but how do you ensure that Tool#3 is the 5mm-cutter THIS time?
If i understand you right, Tool#3 can be ANY tool every new job? You will have to look into the code-window to ensure, right?
What if the code-window is too small to see the whole name of the tool?

I would be happy to publish it, but I'm not terribly interested in explaining how it all works, as it is rather complex.  The code is all reasonably well written, but not really documented.  All of my tool descriptors are auto-generated by a Perl program, from information in an Excel spreadsheet.  This allows me to define feed/plunge rates, RPM, DOC, etc, algorithmically, rather than having to define them individually for every one of the hundreds of tools.  The Perl program generates a SheetCAM tool descriptor file.  I then have a custom SheetCAM POST that performs a number of functions, including the logical-to-physical mapping of tools and outputs a G-code file.  Finally, there is another Perl program that modified the G-code file by determining what pulley/motorspeed/VFD frequencies to use, so as to minimize the number of pulley and motor speed changes for the program as a while, then inserting M0s into the code, prompting for manual setting of the correct pulley, motor speed range for each tool, and many other things.  It's all HIGHLY customized to my machine, and my work flow.
As I said, I'd be happy to post it, but I'm not interested in "supporting" it.

Regards,
Ray L.
Regards,
Ray L.

Offline PSG

*
  •  21 21
    • View Profile
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2009, 02:08:02 PM »
No way was I trying to create a nightmare for Brian about tools. I just figured that if it was "easy" (very loose) I would ask.

Ray, you are correct that 255 tools is more than enough tools. Unfortunately for me, and my wacky scheme, 1-255 is not an easily remembered format. See, my machine is a router and I use bits of all various configurations vs. just endmills and their variants. My post is configured to call out the tool by name as well as number so I can look at the code and see what is being requested. My issue is that (someday) I will forget to ensure that each "different" tool has a different number and that Mach will skip over the tool change.

My scheme (which is easy for me), just so it can be understood is as follows:

180 = .125" drill
182 = .125" endmill 2 FL
140 = .250" drill
142 = .250 endmill 2 FL
144 = .250 endmill 4FL
etc. etc.

Here is where I shoot myself in the foot:

901 = 90 degree V bit 1-inch
601 = 60 degree V bit 1 inch

and it can get worse for coves and ogees :)

Still not a big deal. Maybe one day, although I truly hate having to use one for reference, I will just create a spreadsheet and number everything 1-255 (I guess that is how most do it). The bottom line is Mach DOES (let me say again for all to hear DOES - DOES - DOES - DOES) work very well and I am not complaining in any shape or form.

Brian - Painless is good. Like I said, I am not worried about it (new activation scheme) until the day comes. I still like the idea of a dongle though :)
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2009, 03:34:55 PM »
No way was I trying to create a nightmare for Brian about tools. I just figured that if it was "easy" (very loose) I would ask.

Ray, you are correct that 255 tools is more than enough tools. Unfortunately for me, and my wacky scheme, 1-255 is not an easily remembered format. See, my machine is a router and I use bits of all various configurations vs. just endmills and their variants. My post is configured to call out the tool by name as well as number so I can look at the code and see what is being requested. My issue is that (someday) I will forget to ensure that each "different" tool has a different number and that Mach will skip over the tool change.

My scheme (which is easy for me), just so it can be understood is as follows:

180 = .125" drill
182 = .125" endmill 2 FL
140 = .250" drill
142 = .250 endmill 2 FL
144 = .250 endmill 4FL
etc. etc.

Here is where I shoot myself in the foot:

901 = 90 degree V bit 1-inch
601 = 60 degree V bit 1 inch

and it can get worse for coves and ogees :)

Still not a big deal. Maybe one day, although I truly hate having to use one for reference, I will just create a spreadsheet and number everything 1-255 (I guess that is how most do it). The bottom line is Mach DOES (let me say again for all to hear DOES - DOES - DOES - DOES) work very well and I am not complaining in any shape or form.

Brian - Painless is good. Like I said, I am not worried about it (new activation scheme) until the day comes. I still like the idea of a dongle though :)

But are you using an auto toolchanger?  If not, just insert a comment into the code prior to each toolchange giving you the tool description, rather than the number.  That's what I do.  Numeric schemes always blow up at some point, because you have different tools that, per the scheme, would end up with the same number - straight-flute vs spiral flute, e.g..

Regards,
Ray L.
Regards,
Ray L.
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2009, 04:07:47 PM »
Numeric schemes always blow up at some point, because you have different tools that, per the scheme, would end up with the same number - straight-flute vs spiral flute, e.g..

Not if the numbers can go "far" enough :D SCNR
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 04:09:28 PM by Spartan117 »
Plz excuse my english, I'm german :-D

Offline bowber

*
  •  216 216
  • Kirkby Stephen,Cumbria, UK
    • View Profile
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2009, 10:41:05 AM »
Like Ray I'm not interested in the tool number, I just make sure it's different for each tool used, be it Meshcam, sheetcam or Vcarve Pro.
It's the tool description I look at.
But, A big But, I'm only a hobby user and so most of my jobs don't get repeated in X months time.

I hate Dongles, never ever put Mach on a dongle please.
They break, get lost, get in the way in short I hate them and I currently have 2, Wasatch RIP and Signlabs sign software and they are a pain.

Not too happy about having to activate via a web site but I can understand it, maybe some code to unlock the program that can be published in the event of Artsoft no longer being available for activation?

Steve
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2009, 11:47:34 AM »

Hello,
 I don't understand exactly what will be required here.
Following is a quote from Brian from this topic : http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,11068.0.html

Is this like a "one time activation" thing ? Or every time you start the machine ?   ? ??

Could someone please explain in detail  how this will be intended to work?

Doesn't look like a big deal to me buy maybe I'm not seeing it as it is.

Thanks,
RC



 
Quote
4.) License for Mach3 is about to be locked per machine ID.. The old
license format has served us well over the past 8 years but it is time
to change with the times   . This will be web based (you don't need to
have the controller computer connected to the web) . It is a simple code
that you need to type in... The license file that you have now will get
you into the data base and allow you to register your machines on the
web page to get your code. I hate to do this to you but we are getting
to many people copying license files and using us for support    . In
the end that is what pays to make it so we can keep working on the
software to make it better and more robust! one last note on the license
junk.. the terms will be the same.. If you are a hobby user (Not cutting
for money) you can run from the one license that you have BUT you will
need to register the machine on the web using the same license name..
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2009, 01:21:38 PM »

Hello,
 I don't understand exactly what will be required here.
Following is a quote from Brian from this topic : http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,11068.0.html

Is this like a "one time activation" thing ? Or every time you start the machine ?   ? ??

Could someone please explain in detail  how this will be intended to work?

Doesn't look like a big deal to me buy maybe I'm not seeing it as it is.

Thanks,
RC



 
Quote
4.) License for Mach3 is about to be locked per machine ID.. The old
license format has served us well over the past 8 years but it is time
to change with the times   . This will be web based (you don't need to
have the controller computer connected to the web) . It is a simple code
that you need to type in... The license file that you have now will get
you into the data base and allow you to register your machines on the
web page to get your code. I hate to do this to you but we are getting
to many people copying license files and using us for support    . In
the end that is what pays to make it so we can keep working on the
software to make it better and more robust! one last note on the license
junk.. the terms will be the same.. If you are a hobby user (Not cutting
for money) you can run from the one license that you have BUT you will
need to register the machine on the web using the same license name..

Very much like Windows activation - When you do a new install, you'll have to get on the 'net and contact ArtSoft to get an "activation" key.  Once you have it, you're good to go, until you either move the software to a new machine, or make substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine.  In either case, you go back to ArtSoft and get another activation key.  As I said, very much the way Windows activation works.  It should be quick and painless, and for 99.9% of people a one-time thing.

Regards,
Ray L.
Regards,
Ray L.
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2009, 02:36:22 PM »
Thanks for that info Ray !
I understand moving to another machine, but what sort of "substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine" would necessitate a reactivation ? Like changing the XML ? Or adding a 4th axis ?
RC
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2009, 02:42:55 PM »
Thanks for that info Ray !
I understand moving to another machine, but what sort of "substantial changes to the hardware of the existing machine" would necessitate a reactivation ? Like changing the XML ? Or adding a 4th axis ?
RC


Substantial changes to the PC hardware, not the CNC machine.   Just like Windows.

Regards,
Ray L.
Regards,
Ray L.
Re: re: Whats happened to Mach.4 update
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2009, 03:14:32 PM »
Gotcha Ray...thanks.
Still seems like it's no biggie.
As long as there is a "hot line" and assured 24-7 reactivation for the ones using it for their livelyhood.
RC