On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 13:25:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > There is already an annoying inconsistency in behaviour with this.
Reduce inconsistency is always a good goal :) On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 13:25:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > Has anyone here ever deliberately coded a tool change without a G43? > If so, what was the reason? I have. And some of my colleagues do it cause of lazyness for jobs with a single tool only. On my last job I worked on a bigger mill, which did fairly long jobs on 3D- surfaces. Jobs of about 20-30 hours where quite normal. I had to interrupt the job every half an hour to change the inserts of the milling head. On that interrupt I had to stop job execution, jog the head to a position, where I could extract the tool. Extract the tool, change the inserts, insert the tool again and jog the head to a position near the location where I interrupted the job. For that 3D-jobs we had special tool entries with length and diameter set to 0. Job was a Cam-output generated for that special milling head and tool length was "measured" manually with high precision gauge blocks. Reinhard _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
