On 2020-04-14 8:18 p.m., Reinhard wrote:
On Dienstag, 14. April 2020, 19:07:32 CEST Chris Morley wrote:
On 2020-04-14 9:10 a.m., andy pugh wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 03:58, Reinhard <[email protected]>
wrote:
Maybe G43.2 could be tweaked to take either a H number or axis codes.
That would be very nice indeed!
Take a look at the andypugh/G43.2-direct branch and see if that does
what you expect.
Looking through the code, it is clear that G43 / G43.1 and G43.2 all
completely ignore tool diameter. This means that G43.2 is not actually
useful for wear offsets on a milling machine (as far as I can tell)
but is useful for a lathe.
(Which is probably the intended use)
Thats exactly what it was, a hack for lathe wear offsets.I think we
should try harder to get out of the work around idea and do things
properly.
Doing things right is a good intention!
But relative offsets are not a wear replacement.
It could be used in the same way, but the first goal is to fake a toolsize for
roughing.
I used that at lathe and stil use it on milling at work. If I remember well,
Siemens has cycles where you can add offset for roughing.
At work I need to create fake entries in tooltable, which is risky when others
work at the same machine too.
So having GCode that can apply a relative offset is safe and helpful.
I haven't used cnc mills on commercial CNC but your use case sure sounds
like you could use wear offset for (or G92 I suppose). I don't
understand why you need to fake a size for roughing unless you are hand
coding a quick part. In which using a wear offset to work around the
fact you don't want to code a roughing cycle seems reasonable. I mean
having other options would be nice, but lets get the basics done first.
Another (big) challenge is all around wear offsets. This is completely different
and here I support the idea of first thinking/talking about a good solution.
If you want to implement support for wear offsets, its fundamental having a
timebase to count worktime of each tool. Then a wear-offset becomes meaningful.
Wear offsets a perfectly meaningful without knowing cut time on a tool.
I did work on a CNC lathe that didn't have wear offsets. It would have
been nice to adjust wear offset rather then the tool offset for tool
wear and then just reset tool wear setting when indexing the insert.
I certainly agree recording cut time would be a great addition to
linuxcnc but getting proper wear offsets is certainly useful without it.
At work they run performance tests for all tools, so the cutting volume,
lifetime and price of each tool are calculated. Result is standard tools for
every machine and the knowledge about lifetime of a tool.
So if you know, that a certain tool has a lifetime of i.e. 100h it would be
nice to know, how much time it already has been used for cutting.
Reinhard
This would be wonderful utility. I think we need to get to a tool
database rather then tool file so we can keep track of this data and not
break linuxcnc everytime we add data to the toolfile.
It would be nice to keep moving linuxcnc towards more commercial cnc
capability.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
