I believe we have to start with the ISO standards what ever they might be. Being a commercial operation I can move from control to control and the tool data both geometry and wear offsets is handled very similar from control to control (different brands). I think the major differences come into play on the conversational side. Having programmed Cincinnati, Fanuc and Fagor it is my belief that the tool is still described to a pocket or a tool number. I do know that you can call a similar tool from a different pocket in case of tool breakage and or wear. Using Cam for 99.9 percent of our programming the tool is described to the cam system not the machine. In a shop that uses conversational more I can see where the ability to describe tools to the control would be better but I still believe that is driven by pocket numbers. Mazak conversational has the ability to look at the tool description and find that tool but I have never actually used their control.
Jeff L Johnson Superior Roll & Turning Superiorroll.com 734-279-1831 Fax 279-1166 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management. Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein12331_d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
