Hello Guest it is January 28, 2020, 07:32:52 AM

Author Topic: Auto tool length with manual tool change  (Read 7949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2016, 06:49:51 AM »
Your first While IsMoving is missing the Wend.

This line

Code "G00 G31 z" &zmove"F4"

should be

Code "G00 G31 z" & zmove & "F4"



I'm just curious, above both of you use G00 with this probe move, any particular reason?

Gerry, I know you don't probe exactly the same way, you do the following in most case I've seen from you.

Code "F" & FRate1
Sleep(125)
Code "G31 X" & ProbeLength

Thanks,
Yves
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2016, 06:59:35 AM »
I just saw that the G00 I was wondering about should have been a G90 instead.

Thanks,
Yves
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2016, 07:50:41 AM »
I'm sure I'm not the only one, almost every time I look at others VB code the same problem comes up, those dam DRO numbers, DoButton, DoOEMButton and all other internal variables and or parameters should have been written in plain English in a VB include file as CONST or whatever even if the current version of the scripting language doesn't allow for it (include files). It's like all this is on the dark side of the force, it's a shame and a complete waste of time to search way to often for these numbers and there meaning.  

I want to do my own homing and especially squaring routine because I use Hall sensor and the distance to move off the sensor is to large. I've found C code from Dynomotion that does exactly what I want. One of the first thing it does is to disable the slave mechanism to the master axis. I found after a minimum of 4 hours of search, a post that said to use DoOEMButton(357) and  DoOEMButton(358) and a few hours more to find the meaning of these numbers. The 357 is for Slave ABC off and the 358 is for Slave A on. Your a lucky man if you slaved with the A axis but unfortunate if you used the B or C axis. I found no trace of neither Slave B on or Slave C on numbers and every one knows the functionality is there on the set slave dialog, so where are the numbers for these???

Incredible!
Yves

 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 07:54:29 AM by FelixPQ »

Offline Tweakie.CNC

*
  • *
  •  8,110 8,110
  • Super Kitty
    • View Profile
    • Tweakie.CNC
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2016, 08:28:33 AM »
Quote
I found no trace of neither Slave B on or Slave C on numbers and every one knows the functionality is there on the set slave dialog, so where are the numbers for these???

http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,11061.msg69361.html#msg69361

Tweakie.
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.  Winston Churchill.
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2016, 09:45:15 AM »
Tweakie,

sorry, maybe I don't understand something but the only reference to slave axis is this here.
 
Quote
CoupleSlave(bool)  //sets the slave axis to home exactly with the master axis 1 for on, 0 for off

It's not a big deal, I can use the 357 and 358 calls because at this time I use a 4th axis but if ever I do then I'll need to De-slave my B axis and put it back on after I'm done. It would be nice to do this now while I'm working on this.

Thanks,
Yves



Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2016, 10:29:29 AM »
Wow lots of talking in one day... Honestly I have not touched my cnc in almost a month... I had both my feet worked in surgically just over 6 weeks ago and 6 days ago they redid my elbow for the second (and final) time in 2 years... Simply have not been able to get any time back in the office/ shop area. I did manage to make my home switch mounts and all but my issue now is that some times the machine wants to over run the home switches during a program like mach is not seeing it as a limit switch as well... Mach sure is acting odd. And honestly it's going to take me a few hours to even remember where all I was at in writing the code.

Offline RICH

*
  • *
  •  7,402 7,402
    • View Profile
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2016, 10:36:11 AM »
 
Quote
same problem comes up, those dam DRO numbers, DoButton, DoOEMButton and all other internal variables and or parameters should have been written in plain English
There is a listing of most of them, I think you'll find it in Members Doc's. Also use machscreen as you can find where the Dro, Button, etc is. Of course sometimes the script is
used for items created by the user so one needs the same screen to find. Waite until you get duplicated stuff in a screen set and different scripts.

Must admit that sometimes it is not fun, even irritable, but then, this guy is just a novice at it all!

RICH
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2016, 10:39:34 AM »
I can't wait to try making screen sets myself. But I felt this auto tool length zero was the most important item on my to do list.
Re: Auto tool length with manual tool change
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2016, 12:09:19 PM »
I can't wait to try making screen sets myself. But I felt this auto tool length zero was the most important item on my to do list.
Quote
same problem comes up, those dam DRO numbers, DoButton, DoOEMButton and all other internal variables and or parameters should have been written in plain English
There is a listing of most of them, I think you'll find it in Members Doc's. Also use machscreen as you can find where the Dro, Button, etc is. Of course sometimes the script is
used for items created by the user so one needs the same screen to find. Waite until you get duplicated stuff in a screen set and different scripts.

Must admit that sometimes it is not fun, even irritable, but then, this guy is just a novice at it all!

RICH

Rich,

I appreciate a lot the effort members have made to figure out all these numbers for DRO's Buttons and the works that I've found so far. Without the users efforts, well I'm not sure this forum would still exist... The way I see this, it's plain documentation work that should have been done at the company's level not by the users.

My two cents,
Yves