Hello Guest it is September 17, 2019, 07:39:32 AM

Author Topic: edge finding/2.5D probing  (Read 95723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2007, 07:08:23 PM »
Hi looker1

I'm assuming you've installed everything as per the readme and noted the bit about this error in the hints n tips bit at the end of the readme. If you aknowlege the error and just carry on as directed in the readme, does it still not work then? Regarding the regen of the toolpath, this is not really neccessary or particularly meaningful as there isn't really a toolpath to regenerate. The toolpath is calculated on the fly as probe25D.tap is running.

In short just acknowlege (or ignore) the error and run probe25D.tap anyway. Also I'm assuming you've run the probe utilities application on your start menu first to set up the parameters of your choice for probe25D.tap?

Incidentally please be aware that this is not an Artsoft application - the only "guru" involved is me ;D

Get back to me and we'll get it going step by step if you need me - but like I say - please read the whole readme first if you haven't already.

Cheers

Ian (Stirling)
I have followed the first half of the paragraph the starts " Errors: I haven't added as..." The "too many nests" error doesn't occur.

I configure probe25d.tap in the utility.
I'm working in E:\mach3\gcode, so have M90000.m1s in the right place, ditto for probe25d.tap.

when I start to probe, the probe moves the start position, them moves in a small, erronious, square pattern for about 8 moves, then I get the error "error on line 65" in the file m5.m1s
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 07:32:49 PM by looker1 »

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2007, 04:37:16 AM »
OK - you're nearly there. The little square dance is what it does when it loses the edge. (In the future this will/may form the basis of a "re-find lost edge" routine). Ignore the G31Fix error - I have no idea why M5 should raise this as an error - but it doesn't matter.
It loses the edge more often than not (but not exclusively) because "backoff" is set too high. If you have it set at the default (75%) then try dropping it to 50%. Also obviously I don't know what you have set stepover to be, but until you get it all working I'd recommend setting stepover to no less than approx 1/4inch (6mm) - the smaller the stepover - the more sensitive all the settings become - around 5 to 6mm is a good place to start untill you get the hang.

Offline Chaoticone

*
  • *
  •  5,589 5,589
  • Precision Chaos
    • View Profile
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2007, 07:17:24 AM »
Does anyone know if working off of the ( E ) drive will still affect certain things in/related to Mach?

Brett
;D If you could see the things I have in my head, you would be laughing too. ;D

My guard dog is not what you need to worry about!
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2007, 09:45:20 AM »
OK - you're nearly there. The little square dance is what it does when it loses the edge. (In the future this will/may form the basis of a "re-find lost edge" routine). Ignore the G31Fix error - I have no idea why M5 should raise this as an error - but it doesn't matter.
It loses the edge more often than not (but not exclusively) because "backoff" is set too high. If you have it set at the default (75%) then try dropping it to 50%. Also obviously I don't know what you have set stepover to be, but until you get it all working I'd recommend setting stepover to no less than approx 1/4inch (6mm) - the smaller the stepover - the more sensitive all the settings become - around 5 to 6mm is a good place to start untill you get the hang.

I'll reduce the backoff and increase the stepover, I'll give it a try when the current run is completed.
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2007, 09:47:37 AM »
I successfully use mach3 off the  E drive. It seems seems that Stirlings routine can be made to work off the E also, just follow his instructiuons.
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #75 on: December 06, 2007, 11:12:31 AM »
By the by, stirling, can the object being probed be bigger than the X&Y travel of my machine?

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #76 on: December 06, 2007, 11:35:42 AM »
By the by, stirling, can the object being probed be bigger than the X&Y travel of my machine?
Not sure I'm with you there looker1, can you expand a little?
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #77 on: December 06, 2007, 12:41:09 PM »
Not sure I'm with you there looker1, can you expand a little?

Lets say for example my X&Y travel is 2" x 2"
Now lets say my wierdly shaped object has a footprint of 6" x 6".

I manage to shoehorn it on my table, with parts overhanging the edge of the table. BUT with some empty space within the 2" x 2" work area.

Can your routine deal with not being able to go completely around the probed item?
If so how would you characterize the efficiency compared to a standard bed-of-nails run?

Offline stirling

*
  • *
  •  2,188 2,188
  • UK
    • View Profile
    • www.razordance.co.uk
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #78 on: December 06, 2007, 04:08:43 PM »
That, as they say, is a very good question. I'm intrigued as to what you have in mind. Maybe you have a feature for the ? ? ? tab.

The answers: Currently my 2.5D probing routine will not cope with not being able to go all around the object. Why? because it wasn't designed to do that and it will hit limits, soft hard or physical.

Re: the efficiency of my 3D routine: The less rectangular the object, the more efficient it is over a "standard" bed o nails routine. I'm thinking there's probably a nice mathematical equation for calculating the actual efficiency and it might be based on something like this: Calculate the area of the rectangular bounding box of the object. Calculate the actual area of the object. Divide the former by the latter giving a measure of efficiency. Obviously the more real estate that is NOT probed by mine but that IS probed by the standard, then the more efficient mine is.

Hope this helps.

Ian
Re: edge finding/2.5D probing
« Reply #79 on: December 06, 2007, 04:29:51 PM »
That, as they say, is a very good question. I'm intrigued as to what you have in mind. Maybe you have a feature for the ? ? ? tab.

The answers: Currently my 2.5D probing routine will not cope with not being able to go all around the object. Why? because it wasn't designed to do that and it will hit limits, soft hard or physical.

Re: the efficiency of my 3D routine: The less rectangular the object, the more efficient it is over a "standard" bed o nails routine. I'm thinking there's probably a nice mathematical equation for calculating the actual efficiency and it might be based on something like this: Calculate the area of the rectangular bounding box of the object. Calculate the actual area of the object. Divide the former by the latter giving a measure of efficiency. Obviously the more real estate that is NOT probed by mine but that IS probed by the standard, then the more efficient mine is.

Hope this helps.

Ian

Well then I think that I won't be able to use your routine for the monent because my object is larger than my table.
I'll keep an eye on it though for smaller projects I may have.