Hello Guest it is August 19, 2019, 02:35:47 AM

Author Topic: Possible bug in Lazycam?  (Read 5801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CDyckes

*
  •  27 27
  • Back after 3 year break. Mach2RC6 to Mach3R2
    • View Profile
Possible bug in Lazycam?
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:47:28 AM »
Working extremely well since using the 3GHz P4 PC in the lounge (very tolerant girlfriend). Possibly biggest display yet (65" plasma)   :)



Having a minor toolpath problem with another simple object. The top line should be straight, but the start point (top centre) is too high and adjusts to the correct height by the end of the segment.



Previous items with this sort of toolpath have cut correctly, the workpiece hasn't moved, and the problem is repeatable.  Zip file containing the Lcam project, dxf and tap file is attached.



Colin

Offline CDyckes

*
  •  27 27
  • Back after 3 year break. Mach2RC6 to Mach3R2
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2007, 09:49:55 AM »
One other point: I've never worked out how to use tool compensation so all drawings allow for the width of the cutter (2mmm end mill).  Must learn tool size compensation one day :)

Colin

Offline Graham Waterworth

*
  • *
  •  1,865 1,865
  • Yorkshire Dales, England
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2007, 02:58:30 PM »
Try this one :-

Graham.

O0001 (SPKR)

G21 G40 G80 G17

N1 (2MM SLOT DRILL)
G00 G90 G43 X129.33 Y110.529
T1 M6
Z25.
S4500 M3
G00 Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X129.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X129.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X129.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X129.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X109.33 Y110.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X109.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X109.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X109.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X109.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X109.33 Y75.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X109.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X109.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X109.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X109.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X129.33 Y75.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X129.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X129.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X129.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X129.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X149.33 Y75.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X149.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X149.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X149.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X149.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X169.33 Y75.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X169.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X169.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X169.945 Y75.884 R0.41 F50.
Y75.174 R0.41
X169.33 Y75.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X169.33 Y110.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X169.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X169.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X169.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X169.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X149.33 Y110.529
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
G02 X149.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X149.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G01 Z-3. F10.
G02 X149.945 Y110.884 R0.41 F50.
Y110.174 R0.41
X149.33 Y110.529 R0.41
G00 Z25.
X140.449 Y140.216
Z1.
G01 Z-1.5 F10.
X140.737 Y136.609 F50.
G02 X139.74 Y135.529 R1.
G01 X90.74
G03 X87.74 Y132.529 R3.
G01 Y53.529
G03 X90.74 Y50.529 R3.
G01 X188.74
G03 X191.74 Y53.529 R3.
G01 Y132.529
G03 X188.74 Y135.529 R3.
G01 X139.74
G02 X138.777 Y136.261 R1.
G01 X137.613 Y140.434
G00 Z25.
X140.449 Y140.216
Z-0.5
G01 Z-3. F10.
X140.737 Y136.609 F50.
G02 X139.74 Y135.529 R1.
G01 X90.74
G03 X87.74 Y132.529 R3.
G01 Y53.529
G03 X90.74 Y50.529 R3.
G01 X188.74
G03 X191.74 Y53.529 R3.
G01 Y132.529
G03 X188.74 Y135.529 R3.
G01 X139.74
G02 X138.777 Y136.261 R1.
G01 X137.613 Y140.434
G00 Z25.
M30
Without engineers the world stops

Offline CDyckes

*
  •  27 27
  • Back after 3 year break. Mach2RC6 to Mach3R2
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2007, 09:29:47 AM »
Graham,

Thanks, but that doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the original. Does it check anything in particular?

I've looked in more detail at the G-code for my job and the displays while the job is running and everything looks OK. I'd suspect a backlash problem, but a number of other similar jobs have cut without problem, including a subsequent one cutting a smaller section of the original.  The error on the positioning for the start of the outside cut at top centre is +0.89mm - i.e. Mach3 has moved the table by an additional 0.89mm over and above what it says on the displays, but it sorts itself out by the time it finishes cutting the outer rectangle which is perfect other than this first segment. I think the fact that the Y co-ord sorts itself out by the time it has reached the top right hand arc on the corner eliminates the backlash possibility (plus there are no scuff marks on the material at the plunge point??

Beginning to think this is more Mach3 related than Lazycam.

Don't get me wqrong though; both are BRILLIANT products suited to beginners and experts alike!!

Colin
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2007, 10:19:49 PM »
Your problem looks like a Comp error ...

It is reported

Thanks
Brian
Fixing problems one post at a time ;)

www.newfangledsolutions.com
www.machsupport.com

Offline Graham Waterworth

*
  • *
  •  1,865 1,865
  • Yorkshire Dales, England
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2007, 02:50:45 AM »
The code should do the same job as your code, the idea was that if the same problem was found then the machine is at fault not the code, if the new code worked ok then it is a lcam fault.

Graham.
Without engineers the world stops

Offline CDyckes

*
  •  27 27
  • Back after 3 year break. Mach2RC6 to Mach3R2
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2007, 10:49:39 AM »
Graham, I'll give it a try.

Brian, I agree, but I don't use tool diameter compensation but do think it's a toolpath error.  I measured the excess move as 0.89mm but that could easily have been 1mm (2mm cutter but also diameter of top small hole) when cut. Strange as it didn't happen on an earlier iteration.  Possibly the vertical move from the small hole to the top horizontal line being miscalculated in Mach3 but correct values showing on displays???

Final article (after judicious use of a file :)    )

two of these:-



and one of these:-



plus one of these:-



which started life as an old audio power amp case (back panel now modified)

make up an 8x230W per channel high-end audio Home Theatre amp from commercial modules.

Would have been quicker to use a saw and drill press, but much more satisfying to use CNC toys :) :) :)





« Last Edit: April 29, 2007, 11:28:32 AM by CDyckes »
Colin
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2007, 11:02:03 AM »
I checked it in the new rev and it is working :)

So you will be all set when the new one is out in about a week...

Thanks
Brian
Fixing problems one post at a time ;)

www.newfangledsolutions.com
www.machsupport.com

Offline CDyckes

*
  •  27 27
  • Back after 3 year break. Mach2RC6 to Mach3R2
    • View Profile
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2007, 11:27:34 AM »
Thanks Brian.  I assume that's a new rev of Mach3 as opposed to lazycam as the Gcode looked OK?



Colin
Re: Possible bug in Lazycam?
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2007, 09:53:38 PM »
I think that you will find that Mach3 should be fixed now...

Fixing problems one post at a time ;)

www.newfangledsolutions.com
www.machsupport.com