Hello Guest it is April 17, 2024, 08:59:58 AM

Author Topic: LazyTurn  (Read 1366002 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline budman68

  • *
  •  2,352 2,352
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #730 on: January 02, 2009, 04:46:15 PM »
Art, from a guy that has not done a lot of lathe work (mostly precision mill and precision form grinding with surface grinders), I don't think I'll be a big help in the way certain tools/tool inserts will be used in their proper application and unfortunately I know nothing about coding.

I will continue to try dxfs and find weird little issues but I'll probably be quiet when getting into this area as I just don't "know" enough about the proper use of certain toolshapes. Sure, I could fake my way through it but I don't want to end up being another "wrench" thrown into the works, if you catch my drift.  ;)

Just because I'm a Global Moderator, don't assume that I know anything !

Dave->    ;)
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #731 on: January 02, 2009, 05:13:05 PM »
Hi All,

I've just taken the last [EDIT 3!]days to read through this thread - amazing work folks!

Regarding art comments; whether using a hand ground or tipped tool, if it's handed, it's usually designed to primarily cut in one direction.  If I read Arts comments correctly then the issue is not just cutting on the back edge, but how much is being removed - post #630 illustrates.

If 'restricting' a left hand tool to only cut right to left is a way to achieve it, then I don't see this as a problem provided you can run another roughing path with a right hand tool (or whichever tool is needed) to remove the remainder of the bulk.

Sorry if this sounds as clear as mud - I'm just thinking how you'd do the job manually!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 05:16:58 PM by frogeye »

Offline ART

  • *
  •  1,702 1,702
  • Tough as soggy paper.
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #732 on: January 02, 2009, 06:44:52 PM »
HI Guys:

 Thx, Telling me you dont understand the issue is a valid feedback, it gives me an idea of just how Lazy I have to make it all, the reason there is interest in Turning software isnt just the price of available software is high, its that the software that IS available is pretty complex to use, and requires more understanding than most have of the complexities of turning. If, in the end, LazyTurn is limited to certain types of turning, or allows for a person to get comfortable enough with turning to move upwards to other software, it will have lived up to my initial planning.
   All that having been said, Ill try to make it work for most things, but to me the most important is to try to make it easy.. few button presses and fewer options. Its my holy grail on this project, Im quite willing to tell the "My tool is shaped like an octopus tentacle, how do I turn an inside bore with exclusions?" user to get a copy of the high end stuff, I really just want the causal lathe owner to have some entry level power that may be enough for him/her.

  Of course, being a casual lathe owner myself helps in that, I truly dont know wtf Im doign half the time or more on a lathe, so the work so far reflects what I tend to think I personally want from a DXF->Turn convertor. LOL


--Incompetance is an Art.. I'm mastering that "Art".
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #733 on: January 02, 2009, 07:01:02 PM »
Having said that, We,You, US, still have to change the tool, to reposition on the back cut,in most operations. However the likely cutter,Insert,I would consider,is a triangle,not only can it cut left,right,center,also face, champher, countersink. It sounds Easy,and by No Means, it is going to be a challange. You still have to move the tool. SEE Attached and which one can do all the above. Arrows are tri tools.  Thanks,  Hank S.

Offline Chip

  • *
  •  2,055 2,055
  • Gainesville Florida USA
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #734 on: January 02, 2009, 09:28:48 PM »
Hi, Art & ALL

ART: I agree with you comment's 100%, A branch in the road for sure, I see "3" ways to deal with it at the present time, Still thinking about it more.

1: Take into account for Lt,Rt & Center Cut Both Directions, (Which it pretty much "Could/Would do now") and leave your self a way to actually implement it in the future. (Do a little testing now to give you a "Good feeling" that, You could use the work done to this point, That it will work "OK", If you Find the need for a more diversified Tool Library in the Future. ( Like this one best)

2: Think about this and continue on while gathering more input and adding more experience's to your list, As we transition on to Final Pass code and beyond......... ( OK also)

3: Proceed on, Throwing Caution to the wind & Hope for the Best. (Don't care for this one at All.)

LazyTurn is as lazeeezy as they come and should remain that way, But leave yourself room for the, Notion that your comment that ("--Incompetence is an Art.. I'm mastering that "Art".") Is a State of Mind and is Actually an "ARTFORM" That has Led 10's of thousand's of Us to Master our CNC Hobbies to a Truly Lazy State.

Thanks, Chip

PS: I'll keep post'n-em as I see-em, "Possible Issue" is pretty Weak one. LOL {:-)>

Offline RICH

  • *
  •  7,427 7,427
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #735 on: January 03, 2009, 01:55:26 AM »
Understand what you posted.
So first i'll give you a few things to consider.

1.When do you cut Lazyturn off as a freebee along with MACH?
  As is, with a say with a finish cut and some minor items, you will have exceeded
  LazCam Turn in my honest opinion and nobody, I really mean nobody, can or should ever
  complain because it's limited. It's my thought that it would satisfy so manny
  users of a lathe. You can always tweek it to a level of your wishing in the future.
2.Do you want to try and make software anticipate how somone will machine something?
   I think this one can take you to a never ending black deep hole and create problems
   when you get into individual machining operations and programing.

Any tool, no matter what shape can cut on both sides, it's just a matter of degree of cut depth
and how it's ground.
Until now it's been been outside profiling in a comon directional pass. Practicaly you would want to
cut towards the tail and if you can't you may need to section the profile or have an non-standard
tool to do it, and boring and facing have yet to show their quirks.

I like the current tool selection provided.

No programer,rough /finish cut..... don't you have a max and min left by the rough paths -z,x distances
 such that the average would / could provide a reference  profile and the max rough / finish cut could be
 limited  not to exceed some distance of the max / min rough -z,x distances. The finshing then becomes the
difference between the original profile and the end  of that cut reference profile requiring more than one pass
and the tool must be able to do / get into the profile in a single pass.
Hey, left my calculas and spellinig  book in the cassroom.

Not problem with the r-c-l cutting definition you gave.What's easier for you ART.
I quess fall back to any tool would be the ability to create one if that should come to be.

Haven't the foggiest on the programing end, but, if you want to experiment some,
now may be the time to do it. But maybe comment 1. above should apply.

Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #736 on: January 03, 2009, 03:38:59 AM »
So it seems Im stuck with having to do a "material removed" algorithm instead at this point so I can sense when the tool colides with the stock itself on a non-cutting edge. Till now we've been assuming all tools can cut on both sides, a bad

I'm mainly just thinking aloud;

"Material removed algorithm";

When the each rough pass is finished, in each endpoint of each pass LT seems to rectract the tool by moving just X outwards.

But IF it would instead move the tool by linear movement to the -previous- rough pass endpoint (both in X and Z), then there would be no material between each rough-pass endpoints, would there ? At least tool should have no problems to take left over material with semi-finish or finish-pass.

Then the "material removed algorithm" would then simply be a polygon made of each endpoint (X & Z) of rough-passes ?

"Finish pass";
Finish pass limitations could be partially determined by measuring perpendicular distance between actual DXF-line and above material-removed polygon, taking measurements in each material-removed polygon endpoint.

If perpendicular distance is greater than user has wanted to be left after roughing in both ends of one polygon section (X1,Z1)-( (X2,Z2), then the rough-step has already determined that there is tool limitations involved in this cutting point and no finish pass is possible, so there should be no finish pass calculations between these points and thus maybe saving some computation time.

If the perpendicular distance is same as user wanted, then there is possibility to do finish pass at this polygon segment. After that there could be tracing of DXF-line, perhaps by offsetting it for finish-pass "left-over". Well, certainly this tool limitations check at only polygon endpoints is not suited fine for actual finish-pass cutting, I think the same checks of tool cutting limitations should be done for each (X,Z) point of finishing-path.

And for what it's worth, I'm too voting for simplicity & "lazyness". If the tooling (left/right/center) selected could be used to determine the cutting side of the tool, that would be quite nice for user.

These are just my thoughts, not necessarily useful at all.

With best regards from Finland,

Henry "Henkka" Palonen
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #737 on: January 03, 2009, 11:16:18 AM »
Hi Rich

I disagree that a tool have to cut on both sides.
I use toolholders with inserts like attachment and as you can see not all tools will cut on both sides.
It would be nice if you could select a part of the shape, choose a tools and tooldirection for that part.
This is just a suggestion, i have not any knowledge if it can be done.
As you can see i have repainted the toolholder to the one i use at the compony where i work


Offline ART

  • *
  •  1,702 1,702
  • Tough as soggy paper.
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #738 on: January 03, 2009, 11:51:12 AM »
Hi Guys:

  As you can see from Willems letter many tools would be a problem in terms of computing a gouge free path. Im thinking direction gouge capability is looking better and better. I do like the idea of simply using the roughing end points as the finish path computational points though, makes sense only if the finish tool IS the roughing tool though.. hmm, but if I fake a rough based on finish tool, then use the endpoints of the rough to determine the path of the finish... that sounds liek somethign Ill investigate, dunno if thats what you meant but its a great way to get the data independant of doing an actual path removal process.. that way I only need a tirtiary gouge process based on tool cutting side definition.. Gotta think about about that one.

  As to simply backing off to the previous rough end point on the passing that woudl create collisions in any udercut zone. I like what Ive read though, its given me some idea's.. I think Ill spend some time investigating using just the roughing end points to generate a finish pass.. all endpoints should be legal, and I should be able to convert equi-radial points to arcs.. interesting.. but I think Ill hit some bad arcing issues based on the collision changes not reflecting the true arc of the profile.. but then maybe I can use that to better define the rough stage.. hmm..


Offline ART

  • *
  •  1,702 1,702
  • Tough as soggy paper.
    • View Profile
Re: LazyTurn
« Reply #739 on: January 05, 2009, 10:56:35 AM »
Hi Guys:

 Well, after a detailed analysis of the finish pass requirments, Ive decided I cannot cheat by using rough pass information to trace endpoints or anything.. seems the only true path to sucess is to
do it properly by computing whats actually cut on each pass so we have a stock removed database.

  This will take me awhile, I have to divide each tool down the center so I can subtract it from the slid at start and end of path stretched across the linear path.That will give me a proper
profile of whats removed, and what isnt. From there I can do simulations and calculate a proper rough/finish and finish pass. So Ill start that now and see how it goes. Sounds tough, but it may
turn out to be easier than I think. LazyTurn is actually working each step much like a manual usage of the lathe, so its best I think to continue down that path and let it do each step properly, the finish
will then be better and more accurate. Back to you when I have a new version that displays material removed. Ill work on the assumtion that each tool can cut on both sides and will leave tool side gouging till we have material removed database up and running.

Art ( Just keepign you informaed.. :)  )