Hello Guest it is August 03, 2020, 10:30:44 PM

Author Topic: Mach did again!  (Read 21615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2010, 04:47:02 PM »
Konrad
so your DROs and Toolpath show where the tool is supposed to be but its not?
Hood

The MACHINE coordinates are correct. (same as physical axis position)
-- This is easy to recognize, because the physical machine moves quite continously.

The CURRENT coordinates (with work, fixture, tool and temporary offsets) are heavy to recognise, because the offsets seem to be switched during execution of toolchange and selecting another tool-table entry.
(So to say, I was not able to determine wether they are correct or not.)
-- This will be my work on the next weekends, because I am not working in the mechanical lab during the week.
-- I think it makes sense to capture everything (display and machine) by camera, to be able to review the crash. (I fear any screen capture software could influence the CPU load and thus timing of the PC)

« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 04:54:05 PM by Konrad K »

Offline Hood

*
  •  25,846 25,846
  • Carnoustie, Scotland
    • View Profile
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2010, 05:00:05 PM »
Ok look forward to your results but it seems to be Mach does indeed know where the axis is if the machine coords are correct, doing a verify would confirm this I think.

Hood
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2010, 05:13:55 PM »
Ok look forward to your results but it seems to be Mach does indeed know where the axis is if the machine coords are correct, doing a verify would confirm this I think.

Hood

Yes, it seems to know where the axis is, but wants to go to the absolutely wrong position for some reason I am not yet able to see :-(
(I only spend so much time in Mach3 because I honestly don't expect he competitors to work better - they will also have their own quirks. In fact, Mach3 with all it's possibilities is brilliant. Hopefully, we will catch the glitch before christmas  *gg*)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 05:16:36 PM by Konrad K »

Offline rcaffin

*
  •  1,029 1,029
    • View Profile
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2010, 05:19:04 PM »
If it only happens after a tool change, it may be interesting to look at the M6 macros in some detail?

Cheers
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2010, 05:30:54 PM »
If it only happens after a tool change, it may be interesting to look at the M6 macros in some detail?

Cheers


It also happens when the M6End is an empty file.  *lol*

Offline rcaffin

*
  •  1,029 1,029
    • View Profile
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2010, 05:53:34 PM »
Ok, but what's in the M6Start?
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2010, 08:20:02 PM »
I never use the Ref All Home, I set the table where I want it and the use the ZeroX,Y,Z buttons. Did yuo see anything weird in my M6 macros?
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2010, 08:26:28 PM »
I do not use G54 or G55 in my code.

Could the problem lie in my pulses being to fast? Parallel Port?

Offline rcaffin

*
  •  1,029 1,029
    • View Profile
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2010, 11:49:29 PM »
You know, this does remind me of some problems I was having. In one case a program restarted itself from the beginning, rather than continuing on from Hold; in another case the tool on the Z axis tried to go through the floor. There were others.

But careful investigation showed that by and large, all my problems happened in conjunction with my interacting with the system. Further careful checking showed that they fell into two classes.
Class 1: I forgot to zero the Z-axis after changing tooling.
Class 2: I accidentally bumped the keyboard or the mouse, causing all sorts of havoc with resets, zeroes and edits.

I did try to blame the machine, but long experience with computer systems told me otherwise. It was an operator effect. (That's me.) And in every case of course, the machine coordinates were correct, even if the user coordinates were ... aberrant. So I learnt (am still learning) to avoid playing with the mouse and the keyboard while the machine is running, and to check every action. In fact, sometimes I deliberately put an M1 after an M6, to make me check.

Now, I am not saying that my problems are the cause of your problems, but one has to wonder. After all, the hiccups seem to happen only after operator action, and certainly not every time. At the very least, it may be worth looking for this.

Cheers
Re: Mach did again!
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2010, 12:28:52 AM »
I have done what you said, occasionally I will bump the escape key. Unfortunately I don't believe the problems I am experiencing are operator related. I wish it was and I could fire myself.


You know, this does remind me of some problems I was having. In one case a program restarted itself from the beginning, rather than continuing on from Hold; in another case the tool on the Z axis tried to go through the floor. There were others.

But careful investigation showed that by and large, all my problems happened in conjunction with my interacting with the system. Further careful checking showed that they fell into two classes.
Class 1: I forgot to zero the Z-axis after changing tooling.
Class 2: I accidentally bumped the keyboard or the mouse, causing all sorts of havoc with resets, zeroes and edits.

I did try to blame the machine, but long experience with computer systems told me otherwise. It was an operator effect. (That's me.) And in every case of course, the machine coordinates were correct, even if the user coordinates were ... aberrant. So I learnt (am still learning) to avoid playing with the mouse and the keyboard while the machine is running, and to check every action. In fact, sometimes I deliberately put an M1 after an M6, to make me check.

Now, I am not saying that my problems are the cause of your problems, but one has to wonder. After all, the hiccups seem to happen only after operator action, and certainly not every time. At the very least, it may be worth looking for this.

Cheers