Exactly. Your code needs to be aware you are likely to do a tool change. After the tool change, the code has to move to the safe Z clearance plane then do a G0 move to the cut start. This is pretty much what you would do after an automatic tool change anyway.
I have trouble understanding why the EMC developers are so reluctant to allow MDI/manual moves for tool change. This really is not a problem in use. I know I often compare EMC with Mach but this is a good example. Mach does allow MDI/manual moves during a tool change and it does not make any assumptions after the tool change. It relies on the code to make the appropriate moves. In practice it works fine. Les Andy Pugh wrote: > I don't think it needs to, it will either do the next G0 (which is no > problem at all) or do a G1 which might get a bit boring. (and will > start from the wrong place). I think that if you are inserting a > manual tool change in your code then you know you will be touching off > after it, and would know to put in a G0.It is conceptually no > different from a tool change at a safe position. (but you have to > trust the operator to hand control back at a safe position) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
