On 2/7/22 20:49, andrew beck wrote:
well for what it is worth.
i have used radius values for the last 2 years on my mill and it has been
pretty good.
my mill is a full on VMC, its taiwinese thing chevalier 2040 similar to a
haas VF3 and sat most of its life with a dead control so the bed
On 2/7/22 18:43, andy pugh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 00:30, Andy Howell wrote:
What I still don't understand is how it got set. We don't use the tool
table. We manually touching off the Z.
It's easy to touch-off the wrong dimension. Perhaps someone, at some
point, jogged in Y just
well for what it is worth.
i have used radius values for the last 2 years on my mill and it has been
pretty good.
my mill is a full on VMC, its taiwinese thing chevalier 2040 similar to a
haas VF3 and sat most of its life with a dead control so the bed ways are
like new. (also have the linear
Hi,
I've read the assertion many times that ijk is better than radius and
always assumed it to be correct; but by how much.
Few of us run machines and are 'new' tigjht ;-) Maybe I've not looked
in the right place(s)
for an analysis or for demonstrated interp of circles with some kind of
error
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 00:30, Andy Howell wrote:
> What I still don't understand is how it got set. We don't use the tool
> table. We manually touching off the Z.
It's easy to touch-off the wrong dimension. Perhaps someone, at some
point, jogged in Y just before touching-off. That sets Y as
On 2/7/22 14:44, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
Something is fishy between the Y values.
You have Y4. in the first list and Y0. in the full listing.
Yeah, that was really odd. Turned out to be the tool table had a Y-4.0
offset in it.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stuart Stevenson wrote:
On 2/7/22 15:01, andrew beck wrote:
One option is set your post processor to post radius not ikj values.
That helped me once.
They are much more forgiving
Thanks. I read in the manual that the radius arcs are not as accurate.
Probably a moot point for what we are making.
On Tue, 8 Feb
On 2/7/22 12:04, andy pugh wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 17:55, Andy Howell wrote:
I issued a G91.1 in the MDI as well. I also deleted moved emc.var to
make sure it wasn't picking anything up from there. There was nothing
suspicious in there though. I don't think there are any other files
One option is set your post processor to post radius not ikj values.
That helped me once.
They are much more forgiving
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022, 09:48 Stuart Stevenson, wrote:
> Something is fishy between the Y values.
> You have Y4. in the first list and Y0. in the full listing.
>
> On
Something is fishy between the Y values.
You have Y4. in the first list and Y0. in the full listing.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> I see it in your gcode file listing
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stuart Stevenson wrote:
>
>> Where is the decimal point
Where is the decimal point in the X value of "End=(X1, Y0.8964)"?
I would say it is X1. and expect this is a typo when you entered this
in the email.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 11:12 PM Andy Howell wrote:
> We had been cutting with the same gcode when suddenly it came up with an
> error:
>
I see it in your gcode file listing
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 2:39 PM Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> Where is the decimal point in the X value of "End=(X1, Y0.8964)"?
> I would say it is X1. and expect this is a typo when you entered this
> in the email.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 11:12 PM
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 17:55, Andy Howell wrote:
> I issued a G91.1 in the MDI as well. I also deleted moved emc.var to
> make sure it wasn't picking anything up from there. There was nothing
> suspicious in there though. I don't think there are any other files that
> its stores state in, is
On 2/7/22 04:21, andy pugh wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 10:10, andy pugh wrote:
Have you accidentally switched between G90.1 and G91.1 ?
Forget that, I see that you have an explicit G91.1 in the code.
I suspect that you have accidentally introduced a Y _tool_ offset
during touch-off,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 10:10, andy pugh wrote:
> Have you accidentally switched between G90.1 and G91.1 ?
Forget that, I see that you have an explicit G91.1 in the code.
I suspect that you have accidentally introduced a Y _tool_ offset
during touch-off, touching off the tool rather than the
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 05:12, Andy Howell wrote:
>
> We had been cutting with the same gcode when suddenly it came up with an
> error:
>
> Radius to end of are differs from radius to start:
Have you accidentally switched between G90.1 and G91.1 ?
--
atp
"A motorcycle is a bicycle with a
16 matches
Mail list logo
