Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 02:07, Ed wrote: > Varying speeds is common on later controls. Set how much and how fast. A > smart chatter sensor can do that on the fly. Setting up a spindle speed wobble would be very easy in HAL simply by adding a siggen to the spindle speed command.

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Freitag, 17. April 2020, 00:15:39 CEST Andrew wrote: > ср, 15 квіт. 2020 о 16:55 Reinhard пише: > > ... by the way: recently I was testing linuxvariant of PlanetCNC. To me it > > looks like a fork of lc - and they already solved several problems of lc > > apparently. > > Which exactly

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Thursday 16 April 2020 20:45:58 Jared McLaughlin wrote: > Gene, > > Okuma does it based on... I think one sensor near the spindle nose. > They are the only ones I know of building it in to a production > machine, and the reviews are good. Detecting the emergence of chatter > is wildly obvious

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On 4/16/20 7:53 PM, Chris Morley wrote: I wonder if a engine knock sensor would work? Switching to constantly varying rpm is effective I've heard - do you have an experience with it? Chris Varying speeds is common on later controls. Set how much and how fast. A smart chatter sensor can do

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8 Gene, Okuma does it based on... I think one sensor near the spindle nose. They are the only ones I know of building it in to a production machine, and the reviews are good. Detecting the emergence of chatter is wildly obvious when you look at the frequencies. I've

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Gene, Okuma does it based on... I think one sensor near the spindle nose. They are the only ones I know of building it in to a production machine, and the reviews are good. Detecting the emergence of chatter is wildly obvious when you look at the frequencies. I've even checked out audio of

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

ср, 15 квіт. 2020 о 16:55 Reinhard пише: > ... by the way: recently I was testing linuxvariant of PlanetCNC. To me it > looks like a fork of lc - and they already solved several problems of lc > apparently. > Which exactly problems, may I ask? WBR, Andrew

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

, 2020 8:46 PM To: EMC developers Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8 Gene, Specifically I think it would be interesting to make things like spindle speed a "we will try to get there, unless ..." instead of a PID loop sort of behavior. Think of how

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Thursday 16 April 2020 16:46:59 Jared McLaughlin wrote: > Gene, > > Specifically I think it would be interesting to make things like > spindle speed a "we will try to get there, unless ..." instead of a > PID loop sort of behavior. Think of how you might implement something > like Okuma's

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Gene, Specifically I think it would be interesting to make things like spindle speed a "we will try to get there, unless ..." instead of a PID loop sort of behavior. Think of how you might implement something like Okuma's "Machining Navi" where it takes the spindle speed, monitors vibrations and

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 05:48, Reinhard wrote: > Just happened to discover ... > Do you know about ./nc_files/ngcgui_lib/qpocket.ngc ? > Looks like it is already done. http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.7/html/gui/ngcgui.html For docs. Also take a look at NativeCAM. Demos:

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Thursday 16 April 2020 02:43:51 Reinhard wrote: > On Donnerstag, 16. April 2020, 08:33:31 CEST Gene Heskett wrote: > > That's now fixed, and the need to purchase a rider because my place > > us turning into a jungle, plus the ever increasing needs of my bride > > of 30+ years as she is close

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Donnerstag, 16. April 2020, 08:33:31 CEST Gene Heskett wrote: > That's now fixed, and the need to purchase a rider because my place us > turning into a jungle, plus the ever increasing needs of my bride of 30+ > years as she is close to dying from COPD. That and medical emergencies > since I

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Wednesday 15 April 2020 23:51:38 Jared McLaughlin wrote: > To be fair, I haven't touched a Heidenhain controller in at least ten > years. And I wasn't that great with them, anyway. > > I just feel like, outside of drilling routines, most canned cycles > don't have very robust algorithms - it's

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Donnerstag, 16. April 2020, 05:51:38 CEST Jared McLaughlin wrote: > it'd be super interesting to see canned cycles for linuxcnc Just happened to discover ... Do you know about ./nc_files/ngcgui_lib/qpocket.ngc ? Looks like it is already done. Reinhard

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

To be fair, I haven't touched a Heidenhain controller in at least ten years. And I wasn't that great with them, anyway. I just feel like, outside of drilling routines, most canned cycles don't have very robust algorithms - it's not like they are optimizing for anything but ease. The seem mostly

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Donnerstag, 16. April 2020, 04:58:29 CEST Jared McLaughlin wrote: > I haven't seen a canned cycle for pocketing that I really liked. The > more I learn about machining, the less I like them. I only know 2 Variants: Siemens and Heidenhain. Siemens is pretty hard stuff. You need to know the

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

I haven't seen a canned cycle for pocketing that I really liked. The more I learn about machining, the less I like them. On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:46 PM Reinhard wrote: > > Greetings, > > On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020, 19:40:09 CEST Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > When I rough a pocket using cutter

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Greetings, On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020, 19:40:09 CEST Stuart Stevenson wrote: > When I rough a pocket using cutter comp in > LinuxCNC I must describe a fillet for EVERY change of cutter direction. > This is not necessary for efficient roughing and is a pita. Why not go for a canned cycle?

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Stuart, Hmm. This doesn't sound right, and I haven't noticed that behavior ( not that I'm saying it doesn't happen). You can't just say... G1 G91 X.5; G1 G91 Y.5; With G41 / G42 turned on? I disagree on your machining strategy, but agree that if the above generates an error, then the behavior

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Jared, A milled pocket will have a fillet in the corners at least equal to the radius of the cutter used but that does not make it a requirement to describe a fillet to be able to cut it. I like to use G41/G42 during even the roughing of a pocket. When I rough a pocket using cutter comp in

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Wednesday 15 April 2020 12:35:39 Jon Elson wrote: > On 04/15/2020 08:00 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It sounds to me like you will run into a problem with G41/G42 when > > you get the roughing radius offset working like you want. > > When using G41/G42, if the tool radius (plus

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On 04/15/2020 08:00 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: Hi, It sounds to me like you will run into a problem with G41/G42 when you get the roughing radius offset working like you want. When using G41/G42, if the tool radius (plus any diameter/radius modification for roughing) is not smaller than the

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

I know I'm jumping in the middle of the conversation, but I can't see what other behavior would be desired. On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > I have tried, without success, to convince a developer to add a switch to > the config file to enable/disable the "feature". I

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

I have tried, without success, to convince a developer to add a switch to the config file to enable/disable the "feature". I don't like this behavior. I would always run with the feature disabled. On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 8:26 AM Reinhard wrote: > Greetings, > > On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020,

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020, 15:24:11 CEST Juergen Gnoss wrote: > Thinking further that direction, it may be a starting point in order to > solve some actual problems. Yes sir :) > My idea is, sorting out the g-code interpreter and make it loadable modules That's a really sexy idea. But for

[Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Chris mentioned > It would be nice to keep moving linuxcnc towards more commercial cnc capability. I've thought of that too but it's a really hot topic. Thinking further that direction, it may be a starting point in order to solve some actual problems. My idea is, sorting out the g-code

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Greetings, On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020, 15:00:38 CEST Stuart Stevenson wrote: > It sounds to me like you will run into a problem with G41/G42 ... > When using G41/G42, if the tool radius (plus any diameter/radius > modification for roughing) is not smaller than the programmed radius of the >

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, It sounds to me like you will run into a problem with G41/G42 when you get the roughing radius offset working like you want. When using G41/G42, if the tool radius (plus any diameter/radius modification for roughing) is not smaller than the programmed radius of the corner LinuxCNC will give

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Dienstag, 14. April 2020, 18:10:51 CEST andy pugh 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. my dev-box died, so I have to look

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi Chris, On Mittwoch, 15. April 2020, 06:31:36 CEST Chris Morley wrote: > I don't understand why you need to fake a size for roughing unless you are > hand coding a quick part. That's exactly what I do at work! Handcoding all my jobs! I get a drawing and code from that my jobs. At the machine!

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tuesday 14 April 2020 23:18:07 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 > > > > > wrote: > > >>> Maybe G43.2 could be tweaked to take either a H number or axis >

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

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 wrote: Maybe G43.2 could be tweaked to take either a H number or axis codes. That would be very nice

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

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 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

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On 2020-04-14 9:10 a.m., andy pugh wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 03:58, Reinhard 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

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:10, andy pugh wrote: > 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) It looks like it would be very

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 03:58, Reinhard 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 /

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Montag, 13. April 2020, 17:52:48 CEST andy pugh wrote: > So the answer might actually be G43.1 after all. > G43.1 [#5403 + 0.1] > G41.1 [#5410 + 0.1] > > Maybe G43.2 could be tweaked to take either a H number or axis codes. That would be very nice indeed! Using var-file entries and

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 16:12, Reinhard wrote: > What do I have to code, to use a tool two times. First with 0.1 added to > toollength and 0.1 added to toolradius (without having to know the tool > properties). Second use should be with the properties from tooltable - without > the added changes.

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi Andy, On Montag, 13. April 2020, 16:56:50 CEST andy pugh wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 07:20, Reinhard wrote: > > I understood documentation that way, that G43.1 adds an offset to existing > > tool length > > No, that is G43.2 I beg your pardon, but I don't understand the docs on G43.2

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 07:20, Reinhard wrote: > I understood documentation that way, that G43.1 adds an offset to existing > tool > length No, that is G43.2 -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, I'm confused. Seriously :( > On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 13:25:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > > LinuxCNC offers G43.1 to apply a temporary tool offset. > > I tried it, and it works as documented. Not sure any more. I understood documentation that way, that G43.1 adds an offset to existing

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 15:46, Reinhard wrote: > How can I change this way (temporary) the diameter of a tool? Assuming that this is for cutter compensation purposes, G41.1 and G42.1 -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 13:25:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > LinuxCNC offers G43.1 to apply a temporary tool offset. I tried it, and it works as documented. How can I change this way (temporary) the diameter of a tool? Reinhard ___

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Just to clarify: This option has been in LinuxCNC for along time. But documented in an obscure place. It will not change the operation of many existing programs. Anything which already has an explicit G43, with or without an H number, will behave exactly as before. The only places that the

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi On Samstag, 11. April 2020, 05:54:54 CEST Robert Ellenberg wrote: > Reinhard, that's a great point. It looks like there's a clear value in > keeping the select / change steps separate if your ATC needs to pre-load a > tool. This is what I meant by Fanuc-style tool changes >

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Reinhard, that's a great point. It looks like there's a clear value in keeping the select / change steps separate if your ATC needs to pre-load a tool. This is what I meant by Fanuc-style tool changes , where on some systems the T command

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Samstag, 11. April 2020, 04:54:41 CEST Robert Ellenberg wrote: > Furthermore, you could eliminate > the M6 (since "changing" a tool doesn't necessarily imply a physical tool > change). For the slitting saw example, your code would look like this (T11 > = saw bottom, T12 = saw top). Sorry,

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 22:46, David Bagby wrote: > An example which comes to mind is a slitting saw being used in a > > vertical mill. There is one physical tool for this scenario, but two > different TLO values may typically be in use. One value typically > corresponds to the top edge of the

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

That's an interesting point, and a great reason to not require that a tool have exactly one offset. I think there may be a solution that addresses all of these concerns: 1. A tool with no offset doesn't make sense 2. A single physical tool (saw top / bottom, face mill inserts) can have

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Quoted verbatim as Dave got a bounce, so it might not have made it to the list as a whole: On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 22:46, David Bagby wrote: > > > On 4/10/2020 4:25 AM, andy pugh wrote: > > > > > > It is already an INI file option. I am just proposing to make it default to > > on. > > > > There

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 13:25:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > LinuxCNC offers G43.1 to apply a temporary tool offset. Oh, I overlooked that. Thanks for the hint. Will check asap Reinhard ___ Emc-developers mailing list

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 14:19:27 CEST andy pugh wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 12:45, Reinhard wrote: > > I have. And some of my colleagues do it cause of lazyness for jobs with a > > single tool only. > > Though presumably in that case there wouldn't be a G43 anywhere in the code?

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

> -Original Message- > From: Gene Heskett [mailto:ghesk...@shentel.net] > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:52 AM > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8 > > On Thursday 09 April 2020 23:19

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 12:45, Reinhard wrote: > I have. And some of my colleagues do it cause of lazyness for jobs with a > single tool only. Though presumably in that case there wouldn't be a G43 anywhere in the code? > For that 3D-jobs we had special tool entries with length and diameter set

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

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

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 04:04, Reinhard wrote: > In Heidenhain you have the TD- and TL-words to change Diameter and/or Length. ... > So for me, its a wrong behaviour, allow to retain G43 without the possibility > to change toollength and tooldiameter in GCode. LinuxCNC offers G43.1 to apply a

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Thursday 09 April 2020 23:19:11 Ken Strauss wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Reinhard [mailto:reinha...@schwarzrot-design.de] > > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 11:02 PM > > To: EMC developers > > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and t

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 05:19:11 CEST Ken Strauss wrote: > I'm probably missing something in this discussion but doesn't G10 L1 and G10 > L10 allow one to change a tool table entry including tool length May be, I misunderstood the manual. For me, it reads, as if G10 L1 / G10 L10 change

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Reinhard, I partially agree: to everyone, what is the point of a tool change command that doesn't apply a corresponding length offset? If you don't have an offset stored (or a means of measuring it like a toolsetter / touchoff subroutine), then a tool number is just an arbitrary label. One

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

> -Original Message- > From: Reinhard [mailto:reinha...@schwarzrot-design.de] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 11:02 PM > To: EMC developers > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8 > ...seriously trimmed > So for me, its a w

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, On Freitag, 10. April 2020, 04:26:04 CEST andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:14, Rene Hopf via Emc-developers > wrote: > > Retain G43 > > Almost anybody that has ever used any other controller, > > I have created a branch where RETAIN_G43 defaults to on: > andypugh/persistentG43 >

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:14, Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > Retain G43 > Almost anybody that has ever used any other controller, I have created a branch where RETAIN_G43 defaults to on: andypugh/persistentG43 But I can't decide if it actually works. I don't see the Z offset for the new

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

The problem with file I/O is you end up with flat files that do not describe the relationships between various entities in the system. I might add that any good programmer should also take the time to learn how to study a system, define the entities and create the relational data structures that

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Mittwoch, 8. April 2020, 12:11:15 CEST andy pugh wrote: > But, if we remove the current slot-memory from LinuxCNC, then every > tool changer has to be an advanced tool changer. Here I disagree. For me, any person who wants to do software development should know how to do file io. That's

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Mittwoch, 8. April 2020, 12:35:47 CEST Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > I already had a version that uses sqlite as tooltable, but it requires a lot > more work. Sqlite is quite a good choice. There's no need to keep database in memory. Tooltable is not that time critical so file io

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> On 8. Apr 2020, at 12:20, andy pugh wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 03:04, Reinhard wrote: > >> So the solution to your problems is a tool-manager, that knows all tools and >> which generates a tooltable for each job, which then gets transmitted to the >> cnc-controller. > > Many years

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 03:04, Reinhard wrote: > So the solution to your problems is a tool-manager, that knows all tools and > which generates a tooltable for each job, which then gets transmitted to the > cnc-controller. Many years ago, and working with Tormach, we came up with a powerful

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 02:59, Reinhard wrote: > I think, the job of persitent data storage should not be responsability of > Hal, but either linuxcnc or atc-module. Indeed. And currently it is possible to use either system. An advanced ATC can simply completely ignore LinuxCNC's opinion of which

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 20:09:43 CEST Ken Strauss wrote: > Assuming that you use premeasured > tools (I have about 50 ready to go) requiring multiple tool tables will > create far more problems than it solves. For just two new problems: > 1) Assume that I break, replace and remeasure tool

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 18:15:56 CEST Gene Heskett wrote: > In any event I'm opposed t0 the automatic reload of the last tool. Well, linuxcnc should save the tool number of the tool in the spindle in persistent state, where it could be reloaded if necessary. I often have the problem,

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 18:07:09 CEST andy pugh wrote: > But, very often, the tool change process is handled by HAL components > and G-code remaps, and in that case it is useful for LinuxCNC to help > out ... Sure! I thought about implementation of a "complicated" atc, like a chaotic

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 19:45:12 CEST Gene Heskett wrote: > We may need only 5 or 6 tools to finish > that part of the job, so a named tool table with 10 entry's seems like a > better solution to me. Not sure, whether I understand you right, but 10 entries in tooltable is too limited.

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> -Original Message- > From: Gene Heskett [mailto:ghesk...@shentel.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 3:08 PM > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour Assuming that you use > > premeasured tools (I have

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> On 7. Apr 2020, at 21:15, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > I believe it’s a just lathe thing > Lathe-fanucy.tbl Yes, it works. ___ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

pers Cc: Rene Hopf Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour > On 7. Apr 2020, at 20:47, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > How does it affect the Fanuc style tool change? T0101 or T0406? Is this documented anywhere? I can test it. > > Just asking as I may have

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

or Roll & Turning > 734-279-1831 > > -Original Message- > From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 2:41 PM > To: EMC developers > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 19:3

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tuesday 07 April 2020 14:09:43 Ken Strauss wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Gene Heskett [mailto:ghesk...@shentel.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:45 PM > > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

1 PM To: EMC developers Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 19:30, Gene Heskett wrote: > > That's currently 1000 tools. Unlikely to be a problem for many. > > When did that happen? 4 hours ago. Do keep up :-) https://github.com/LinuxCNC

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

> On 7. Apr 2020, at 19:03, mydani wrote: > > Did u run all the tests successfully in your rebase? I put some changes on > top of your work, to totally distinguish between tool table index and > pocket. Where can I find them? Did you have any problems with the branch?

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> On 7. Apr 2020, at 20:47, Ken Strauss wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 2:41 PM >> To: EMC developers >> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour >

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> -Original Message- > From: andy pugh [mailto:bodge...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 2:41 PM > To: EMC developers > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 19:30, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > That

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 19:30, Gene Heskett wrote: > > That's currently 1000 tools. Unlikely to be a problem for many. > > When did that happen? 4 hours ago. Do keep up :-) https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/commit/b51ef8cc3c560b6c44d095814988a3f972bc0763 -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tuesday 07 April 2020 14:04:11 andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:47, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > So you remove the tool, but don't tell LinuxCNC? > > > > Said that way Andy, yes. I do not shut down with a holder on the > > post, nor do I home the next morning with a tool on the post.

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> -Original Message- > From: Gene Heskett [mailto:ghesk...@shentel.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:45 PM > To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour > > On Tuesday 07 April 2020 12:26:23 andy pugh w

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:47, Gene Heskett wrote: > > So you remove the tool, but don't tell LinuxCNC? > > Said that way Andy, yes. I do not shut down with a holder on the post, > nor do I home the next morning with a tool on the post. In either event, I don't really see what your perceived

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tuesday 07 April 2020 12:26:23 andy pugh wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > > In any event I'm opposed t0 the automatic reload of the last tool. I > > home to a safe position, and I sure don't want the last tool used > > loaded leading to a crash and broken tool when

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:14, Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > Where do I need to document the changes, so they show up in the release notes? https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/blob/master/docs/src/getting-started/updating-linuxcnc.txt and

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hello Rene Did u run all the tests successfully in your rebase? I put some changes on top of your work, to totally distinguish between tool table index and pocket. Regards Daniel Rene Hopf via Emc-developers schrieb am Di. 7. Apr. 2020 um 16:14: > Hi, > There are a few things I would like to

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:14, Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > 1. > Fix pocket numbers > I rebased my pocket number fix to 2.8, and it seems to work ok. Can you describe the differences? There have been many iterations at this. I don't have a tool changer, but I think that at the moment the

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Gene Heskett wrote: > In any event I'm opposed t0 the automatic reload of the last tool. I home > to a safe position, and I sure don't want the last tool used loaded > leading to a crash and broken tool when I fire up linuxcnc the next day. So you remove the tool,

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

> On 7. Apr 2020, at 18:15, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 April 2020 11:34:22 Reinhard wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 16:13:07 CEST Rene Hopf via Emc-developers > wrote: >>> 1. Fix pocket numbers >> >> I'm no developer, but please allow me to bubble a few

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tuesday 07 April 2020 11:34:22 Reinhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 16:13:07 CEST Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > > 1. Fix pocket numbers > > I'm no developer, but please allow me to bubble a few thoughts about > tooltable, atc, pockets, slots, ... > > I'm quite unlucky

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 16:36, Reinhard wrote: > I believe, that its a big overshoot to put the tooltable in the nml-status- > area. Tooltable-properties are quite seldom requested by ui, so it would be > sufficient, if the table or parts of it would be served at request only. I agree. I think

Re: [Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour

Hi, On Dienstag, 7. April 2020, 16:13:07 CEST Rene Hopf via Emc-developers wrote: > 1. Fix pocket numbers I'm no developer, but please allow me to bubble a few thoughts about tooltable, atc, pockets, slots, ... I'm quite unlucky to work on a machine, where I have to struggle with atc- slots.

[Emc-developers] Toolchange and tlo behaviour change in 2.8

Hi, There are a few things I would like to change in 2.8. 1. Fix pocket numbers I rebased my pocket number fix to 2.8, and it seems to work ok. https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc/tree/2.8-pocket-fix The branch based on 2.6 has been