On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:18:54PM -0600, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > The g98/g99 commands seem to > work "almost as expected". The description in the EMC2 "G-Code" Quick > Reference seems reversed. It is confusing.
Jeff said they are reversed in the quick ref. I see he committed a fix. > number 4 - I have never liked this statement "backed off a bit". It is > set by a parameter in the control. Some materials and hole sizes > require a different amount of "backed off a bit". In EMC2 this "a bit" is always .010 inches. > The fanuc control also has a G73 peck cycle. This cycle doesn't > retract out of the hole, but instead retracts "just a little bit" to > break the chip, then feeds from that point. This is another example of > the "backed off a bit" I have never liked. > I don't know if anyone has any interest in implementing G73 or any > other cycles. It is not a big issue. The only issue I see for general > use is - without the G73 cycle EMC is less compatable with some > existing programs. No reason not to add this. It's a useful cycle. The arguments would be exactly like G83 I assume. I will let others comment/worry about how G98/G99 work. I have never changed this from the default and I guess I program the R plane to be the same as the safety plane (starting height) so I wouldn't notice any difference. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
