Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
I had a little light bulb go off in my head.
I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On Jul 22, 2:35*pm, Ignoramus24043 ignoramus24...@NOSPAM.
24043.invalid wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i If I'm getting this right, you're putting X and Y moves in an inner loop with minor Z movements outside them and major Z movements outside of that, Correct? No reason at all why something like that shouldn't work. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i You're picking up on what CAM software does. CAD provides the design of the part, CAM figures out how to make the part essentially. |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus24043 wrote:
2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. If it is not a simple circle, oval or rectangle, then it may be better to plan the whole thing on a CAD system. Bobcad/CAM, one of the lower-level packages, will do this pretty much automatically. You give the pocket outline, the depth, and set some parameters such as the step-over and plunge increment, and have it draw an offset line to compensate for the tool radius, and it will carve out the interior of the pattern automatically. Pretty much any CAM system ought to be able to do the same. Jon |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-22, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus24043 wrote: 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks for bringing this up. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. If it is not a simple circle, oval or rectangle, then it may be better to plan the whole thing on a CAD system. Bobcad/CAM, one of the lower-level packages, will do this pretty much automatically. You give the pocket outline, the depth, and set some parameters such as the step-over and plunge increment, and have it draw an offset line to compensate for the tool radius, and it will carve out the interior of the pattern automatically. Pretty much any CAM system ought to be able to do the same. Sure. I will look into all of it. i |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
"Jon Elson" wrote in message
... Ignoramus24043 wrote: 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. If it is not a simple circle, oval or rectangle, then it may be better to plan the whole thing on a CAD system. Bobcad/CAM, one of the lower-level packages, will do this pretty much automatically. You give the pocket outline, the depth, and set some parameters such as the step-over and plunge increment, and have it draw an offset line to compensate for the tool radius, and it will carve out the interior of the pattern automatically. Pretty much any CAM system ought to be able to do the same. Dudn't dat Mach controller program do all this? These are all standard routines in any Haas/fadal, etc. If doing a curve with an underlying analytic function, that function can be straightforwardly done in a macro, without the need for cad or cam. Fadal supplies such a macro for an ellipse. I think it has to be done quadrant by quadrant, but no biggie. I've done such a macro for fishmouth chamfering. -- EA Jon |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Existential Angst wrote: "Jon Elson" wrote in message ... Ignoramus24043 wrote: 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. If it is not a simple circle, oval or rectangle, then it may be better to plan the whole thing on a CAD system. Bobcad/CAM, one of the lower-level packages, will do this pretty much automatically. You give the pocket outline, the depth, and set some parameters such as the step-over and plunge increment, and have it draw an offset line to compensate for the tool radius, and it will carve out the interior of the pattern automatically. Pretty much any CAM system ought to be able to do the same. Dudn't dat Mach controller program do all this? These are all standard routines in any Haas/fadal, etc. Iggy is using EMC2, but yes, Mach3 has "wizards" for these type of functions and I'm pretty sure EMC2 has something comparable as well. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus24043 wrote:
or example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. See G12,G13 with plane select keyword(G17,18,19). My quick google shows that g2 g3 now take a ramping value on some controls. In the case of G12, G13 on older controls, it was basically a G2/3 move with an infeed or ramping down/up per revolution. That is if I remember this correctly. Wes http://www.new.manufacturinget.com/?p=620 -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-22, Ignoramus24043 wrote:
I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Even better is to ramp down as you circle. Plunging requires a center-cutting mill. The ramp does not as you get slightly deeper as you progress. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary Also consider cutter compensation -- telling the CNC machine what diameter cutter you are using, and which side of the cutter you are using, and it generates a tool path to produce the shape you want -- or complains if the drawing calls for a tighter radius in the pocket than your mill can actually produce. Of course, you don't hit this particular problem when cutting the outside of a rectangle. If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. But if you don't separate (in time) the tasks, you can do the ramp down instead. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Indeed so. Enjoy, DoN. -- Remove oil spill source from e-mail Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus24043 on Thu, 22 Jul
2010 14:03:10 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 2010-07-22, Pete C. wrote: Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i You're picking up on what CAM software does. CAD provides the design of the part, CAM figures out how to make the part essentially. I think that what I am trying to do, is build a library of functions to provide CAM functionality. And is a good thing to understand in and of itself. That is, when I was taking a class on CNC, we started out having to write the code to move the end mill from point A to point B. All the code, all the way. From "turn on spindle" to descend, to enter metal, to move to starting point, make pass, exit, etc, etc, etc. Once we knew what we wanted, and how it was done, then we moved on to the "neat" CAD/CAM which let us draw the part, then let the program figure out how to mill it. Even then, it required us to understand the process. pyotr -- pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-23, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus24043 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:03:10 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 2010-07-22, Pete C. wrote: Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i You're picking up on what CAM software does. CAD provides the design of the part, CAM figures out how to make the part essentially. I think that what I am trying to do, is build a library of functions to provide CAM functionality. And is a good thing to understand in and of itself. That is, when I was taking a class on CNC, we started out having to write the code to move the end mill from point A to point B. All the code, all the way. From "turn on spindle" to descend, to enter metal, to move to starting point, make pass, exit, etc, etc, etc. Once we knew what we wanted, and how it was done, then we moved on to the "neat" CAD/CAM which let us draw the part, then let the program figure out how to mill it. Even then, it required us to understand the process. Great approach. Cover the basics first. Since I have a mill, I have to write all codes etc. (and if I cut its table in half accidentally, it will be my loss to eat!) i |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On Jul 22, 6:21*pm, Ignoramus24043 ignoramus24...@NOSPAM.
24043.invalid wrote: On 2010-07-23, pyotr filipivich wrote: Ignoramus24043 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:03:10 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following: On 2010-07-22, Pete C. wrote: Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape".. Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i You're picking up on what CAM software does. CAD provides the design of the part, CAM figures out how to make the part essentially. I think that what I am trying to do, is build a library of functions to provide CAM functionality. * *And is a good thing to understand in and of itself. * That is, when I was taking a class on CNC, we started out having to write the code to move the end mill from point A to point B. *All the code, all the way. *From "turn on spindle" to descend, to enter metal, to move to starting point, make pass, exit, etc, etc, etc. *Once we knew what we wanted, and how it was done, then we moved on to the "neat" CAD/CAM which let us draw the part, then let the program figure out how to mill it. *Even then, it required us to understand the process. Great approach. Cover the basics first. Since I have a mill, I have to write all codes etc. (and if I cut its table in half accidentally, it will be my loss to eat!) i If, when using one of your programs, you suddenly hit an emergency stop button, does your program stop, also? Then are you able to go back to the operation that stopped and continue on? Something to consider. Paul |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 23 Jul 2010 05:03:26 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote: On 2010-07-23, wrote: On Jul 22, 6:21*pm, Ignoramus24043 ignoramus24...@NOSPAM. 24043.invalid wrote: [ ... ] Great approach. Cover the basics first. Since I have a mill, I have to write all codes etc. (and if I cut its table in half accidentally, it will be my loss to eat!) i If, when using one of your programs, you suddenly hit an emergency stop button, does your program stop, also? Then are you able to go back to the operation that stopped and continue on? Something to consider. I consider it to be very likely using EMC. However -- using my Compact-5/CNC lathe (Emco-Maier 5" swing, stepper driven, 6502 CPU) not only can I not restart from the step which I stopped on -- but I lose the entire program (unless I saved it on tape first), because it drops power from the CPU and spindle motor as well as the stepper motors. You really need to have the program written to tape (uggg!!) a floppy, or even a flash device and simply reload from the files. There is no way to go to Toolx and start from there? And if you have the encoder counters powered by an alternative power source (e.g. the Servo-To-Go board has provisions for a battery to back up the counters and continue power to the encoders) you can even have the machine record how far it was moved by manually manipulating the powered-down servo motors or the leadscrews (if they rotate -- the Bridgeport BOSS-3 X-axis does not -- the nut rotates in precision bearings instead, so you avoid whip in the leadscrew at high speeds -- as though you could accomplish high speeds with the original stepper motors in the BOSS-3.) Enjoy, DoN. One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-22, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus24043 wrote: or example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. See G12,G13 with plane select keyword(G17,18,19). My quick google shows that g2 g3 now take a ramping value on some controls. Yes, but for circles only. EMC takes arguments to make the cut helical. I want to make a lifting eye with a egg shaped hole. In the case of G12, G13 on older controls, it was basically a G2/3 move with an infeed or ramping down/up per revolution. That is if I remember this correctly. You do. i Wes http://www.new.manufacturinget.com/?p=620 EMC is almost all software, so, |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-22, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2010-07-22, Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Even better is to ramp down as you circle. Plunging requires a center-cutting mill. The ramp does not as you get slightly deeper as you progress. Great point. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary Also consider cutter compensation -- telling the CNC machine what diameter cutter you are using, and which side of the cutter you are using, and it generates a tool path to produce the shape you want -- or complains if the drawing calls for a tighter radius in the pocket than your mill can actually produce. Of course, you don't hit this particular problem when cutting the outside of a rectangle. you mean inside rectangle? If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. But if you don't separate (in time) the tasks, you can do the ramp down instead. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Indeed so. I will first try to just learn G codes, I think, but I started experimenting with better way of writing those scripts. Basically a CAM library in perl. But I think that before running, I need to learn to walk, so, I will practice using G-Codes in a non-idiosyncratic manner. i i |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
|
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
"Ignoramus24043" wrote in message
... I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. Have you looked at Cam Bam? They claim it's a beta, but I have done some real serious detail work with this CAM software, and it even has some limited CAD capability. The executions limited demo is 100% non crippled, and the price to register is very reasonable. If you enjoy writing programs soldier on, but otherwise I think you are reinventing the wheel. Yes, I still do some hand coding of G-code, but as I learn to use the tools I have I do less and less of it. |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
... On Jul 22, 2:35 pm, Ignoramus24043 ignoramus24...@NOSPAM. 24043.invalid wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i If I'm getting this right, you're putting X and Y moves in an inner loop with minor Z movements outside them and major Z movements outside of that, Correct? No reason at all why something like that shouldn't work. Yeah, NFS Wizards in Mach 3 have functions to do that built in. You just tell it to ramp to depth. It drills a helical pattern to depth and then finishes the pocket. If the pocket is multi pass it will do it for each pass. |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus7608 wrote:
See G12,G13 with plane select keyword(G17,18,19). My quick google shows that g2 g3 now take a ramping value on some controls. Yes, but for circles only. EMC takes arguments to make the cut helical. I want to make a lifting eye with a egg shaped hole. Might as well have fun. Pictures are expected Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:58:20 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
wrote: "Ignoramus24043" wrote in message m... I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. Have you looked at Cam Bam? They claim it's a beta, but I have done some real serious detail work with this CAM software, and it even has some limited CAD capability. The executions limited demo is 100% non crippled, and the price to register is very reasonable. If you enjoy writing programs soldier on, but otherwise I think you are reinventing the wheel. Yes, I still do some hand coding of G-code, but as I learn to use the tools I have I do less and less of it. I do have a spare registered dongle for one of the older versions of MasterCam btw...I was wanting $1000 for it..but ..I might Swap for it. Gunner One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On 23 Jul 2010 05:03:26 GMT, "DoN. Nichols" wrote: On 2010-07-23, wrote: [ ... ] If, when using one of your programs, you suddenly hit an emergency stop button, does your program stop, also? Then are you able to go back to the operation that stopped and continue on? Something to consider. I consider it to be very likely using EMC. However -- using my Compact-5/CNC lathe (Emco-Maier 5" swing, stepper driven, 6502 CPU) not only can I not restart from the step which I stopped on -- but I lose the entire program (unless I saved it on tape first), because it drops power from the CPU and spindle motor as well as the stepper motors. You really need to have the program written to tape (uggg!!) a floppy, or even a flash device and simply reload from the files. The provisions on this machine are saving to tape (a weird miniaturized cassette which is not quite compatible with the tiny answering machine tapes) or to punched tape via a RS-232 interface (which is what I use to save to a computer instead -- though it is awkward in any case. I do have a (totally undocumented) 3-1/2" floppy drive with a controller card on it from the Emco-Maier people which can replace the tape drive (and which probably acts *just* like the tape drive from the front panel controls) which I have not yet bothered to make up the mounting hardware for. But I'm not at all sure that it is any better than the tapes, other than floppies are easier to find. :-) There is no way to go to Toolx and start from there? Note that this has no home positions. You move to somewhere and then select absolute mode, and it works from there. If the program stops and power is lost (e.g. the e-Stop) it also loses track of where it was. You can't define the tool offsets at the beginning of the program -- *each* time you call up a tool, you have to enter the offsets with it. And the tool turret does not have a home position either. You tell it to move forward N stations (so you have to keep track of where it is -- and have to end the program with a return to the starting station or everything will be a disaster when you start again. :-) Remember -- this is not EMC -- or anything else serious. It lives entirely in the address space of a 6502 (the CPU used in the Apple-II or the Commodore PET). I believe that it was sold to be used as a training tool, not a working one. :-) Enjoy, DoN. -- Remove oil spill source from e-mail Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-23, Ignoramus7608 wrote:
On 2010-07-22, Wes wrote: Ignoramus24043 wrote: or example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. See G12,G13 with plane select keyword(G17,18,19). My quick google shows that g2 g3 now take a ramping value on some controls. Yes, but for circles only. EMC takes arguments to make the cut helical. Hmm ... what about arguments to make a circle elliptical? I want to make a lifting eye with a egg shaped hole. With *that* -- you will need a much more complex program, blending various curves to make the total desired shape -- and you might as well find a section which is the largest segment of a circle and ramp down during that, then complete the shape from there. Enjoy, DoN. -- Remove oil spill source from e-mail Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:58:20 -0700, "Bob La Londe" wrote: "Ignoramus24043" wrote in message om... I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. Have you looked at Cam Bam? They claim it's a beta, but I have done some real serious detail work with this CAM software, and it even has some limited CAD capability. The executions limited demo is 100% non crippled, and the price to register is very reasonable. If you enjoy writing programs soldier on, but otherwise I think you are reinventing the wheel. Yes, I still do some hand coding of G-code, but as I learn to use the tools I have I do less and less of it. I do have a spare registered dongle for one of the older versions of MasterCam btw...I was wanting $1000 for it..but ..I might Swap for it. A weekend of fishing the river and a huge bag of hand injected plastic baits? |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-23, Ignoramus7608 wrote:
On 2010-07-22, DoN. Nichols wrote: On 2010-07-22, Ignoramus24043 wrote: [ ... ] For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Even better is to ramp down as you circle. Plunging requires a center-cutting mill. The ramp does not as you get slightly deeper as you progress. Great point. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary Also consider cutter compensation -- telling the CNC machine what diameter cutter you are using, and which side of the cutter you are using, and it generates a tool path to produce the shape you want -- or complains if the drawing calls for a tighter radius in the pocket than your mill can actually produce. Of course, you don't hit this particular problem when cutting the outside of a rectangle. you mean inside rectangle? No -- I mean *outside* the rectangle. If you are making a rectangular plateau -- or cutting the outside dimensions of a plate, you can produce totally square corners -- or round them to whatever degree you want, with no consideration of the size of the cutter -- as long as it will fit between the feature you are making and all surrounding ones. But when doing the *inside* of a rectangle, you *can't* produce a square corner unless you have a special tool which holds mills at a 45 degree angle and the mills come to a sharp point at just the right angle. *That* can be fed vertically to make the inside of the corners sharp. But it will have to be re-oriented for each corner, unless the workpiece is on a rotary table. Otherwise, your inside corners are limited to the radius of the mill being used. Picture what would happen if you had a 1/2" diameter (1/4" radius) end mill, and asked it to produce a 1/8" radius in the corners. If the software is good -- it will simply error out. If not, it will attempt it, gouging out around the corners. :-) BTW A trick for roughing vs finish cutting. When you first run the program -- *lie* to it about the size of the cutter, telling it that the cutter is N thousandths larger than it really is, so it will leave "N thousandths"/2 of material on each surface. Then re-run the program with the true size of the mill entered, and you will get a finish cut. (You will also waste some machine time as it re-cuts air in the pocket forming and such, but you can slightly re-write the program to only do the finish passes if time is more important to you. [ ... ] Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Indeed so. I will first try to just learn G codes, I think, but I started experimenting with better way of writing those scripts. Basically a CAM library in perl. O.K. But I think that before running, I need to learn to walk, so, I will practice using G-Codes in a non-idiosyncratic manner. Yes -- that makes sense. Some things (like blending curves to straight cuts) may benefit from a CAD program generating the desired shape, and a CAM one generating the g-Codes as a starting point -- which could still be hand optimized. Enjoy, DoN. -- Remove oil spill source from e-mail Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:19:07 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:58:20 -0700, "Bob La Londe" wrote: "Ignoramus24043" wrote in message news:4f6dne8h2534EtXRnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews. com... I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. Have you looked at Cam Bam? They claim it's a beta, but I have done some real serious detail work with this CAM software, and it even has some limited CAD capability. The executions limited demo is 100% non crippled, and the price to register is very reasonable. If you enjoy writing programs soldier on, but otherwise I think you are reinventing the wheel. Yes, I still do some hand coding of G-code, but as I learn to use the tools I have I do less and less of it. I do have a spare registered dongle for one of the older versions of MasterCam btw...I was wanting $1000 for it..but ..I might Swap for it. A weekend of fishing the river and a huge bag of hand injected plastic baits? You actually interested in it? It has hummm...5 Mastercam versions on it IRRC..master mill, the lathe thingy and 3 others. Ill have to go dig it up and refresh my memory as to which version its good for. Lots of downloads out there..with the dongle..they are legal. Or mostly G Gunner One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:19:07 -0700, "Bob La Londe" wrote: "Gunner Asch" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:58:20 -0700, "Bob La Londe" wrote: "Ignoramus24043" wrote in message news:4f6dne8h2534EtXRnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews .com... I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. Have you looked at Cam Bam? They claim it's a beta, but I have done some real serious detail work with this CAM software, and it even has some limited CAD capability. The executions limited demo is 100% non crippled, and the price to register is very reasonable. If you enjoy writing programs soldier on, but otherwise I think you are reinventing the wheel. Yes, I still do some hand coding of G-code, but as I learn to use the tools I have I do less and less of it. I do have a spare registered dongle for one of the older versions of MasterCam btw...I was wanting $1000 for it..but ..I might Swap for it. A weekend of fishing the river and a huge bag of hand injected plastic baits? You actually interested in it? It has hummm...5 Mastercam versions on it IRRC..master mill, the lathe thingy and 3 others. Ill have to go dig it up and refresh my memory as to which version its good for. Lots of downloads out there..with the dongle..they are legal. Or mostly G I haven't a clue if I would like Master Cam or not. I have not played with it at all. For 2D an 2.5D I like Cam Bam a lot. It took me a few weeks to get a handle on how it works, and if I had time to just sit and play I could probably have done it in a day or two. Supposedly it does 3D pretty well, but I have not gotten a 3D CAD program yet that I can use effectively to try it. I am fighting right now with some shapes that I just can't seem to backdoor without hand writing the code and using my Excel macro to do the reiterative work. It's a big pain. However, if I could get the dongle in exchange for taking you fishing for a couple days (something I would do anyway)... I would atleast give MasterCam a try. LOL |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus24043 wrote:
On 2010-07-22, Jon Elson wrote: The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks for bringing this up. I've posted my treprectramp.c program, which generates G-code to ramp down while milling along the interior outline of a rectangular cutout, then makes a finish pass at full depth. See http://pico-systems.com/treprectramp.c Jon |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
On 2010-07-25, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus24043 wrote: On 2010-07-22, Jon Elson wrote: The generally suggested method is to ramp down while performing the cut, rather than plunging in Z and then moving in XY. I have already converted my "treprect" program that plunged first, then cut around the rectangular shape, then made a finish pass at full depth. The new version, which I haven't gotten up on my web page yet ramps down on the first side of each level. That actually makes perfect sense. Thanks for bringing this up. I've posted my treprectramp.c program, which generates G-code to ramp down while milling along the interior outline of a rectangular cutout, then makes a finish pass at full depth. See http://pico-systems.com/treprectramp.c Jon Jon, I am writing a function (in perl), to do what you did, but possibly in multiple passes for many pockets. I will reuse that idea. After maybe half a year, I will provide it as a module on CPAN. It would be essentially a library with building blocks for CAM. Could be useful for someone willing to write a GUI for it or for some websites. i |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
Ignoramus7608 wrote:
If, when using one of your programs, you suddenly hit an emergency stop button, does your program stop, also? Then are you able to go back to the operation that stopped and continue on? Something to consider. I am not sure, I will check it out. If his E-stop chain breaks the PPMC estop circuit, then EMC will be notified of the condition, and it stops, showing the current block of G-code. EMC continues reading the encoder position all the time, so you don't have to re-home or reset the part coordinates. Unfortunately, EMC doesn't handle restarts perfectly seamlessly. You have to click on the line (or a different program line that is a better/safer start place) and then select the "start from line" menu. This causes EMC2 to scan through the program and find the coordinates at the beginning of the selected move and go there first before resuming. Most of this works pretty well. One problem is it won't start the spindle and coolant, etc. So, you have to manually set that first before clicking the start from line. (There's an option that disables the ability to start the spindle and go to manual, but this seems to work by default.) You have to leave the machine in such a position that the restart move is clear of crashes. Jon |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts"
In article ,
Ignoramus7608 wrote: On 2010-07-23, wrote: On Jul 22, 6:21?pm, Ignoramus24043 ignoramus24...@NOSPAM. 24043.invalid wrote: On 2010-07-23, pyotr filipivich wrote: Ignoramus24043 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:03:10 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking ?the following: On 2010-07-22, Pete C. wrote: Ignoramus24043 wrote: I had a little light bulb go off in my head. I think that I know what to do. I will have functions that could combine different machining notions together. For example, say, I have a steel plate. I could make a circular cut through it. If the plate is thick or hard, I may need to do it in several passes, with plunging. Okay so far. This really involves two separate concepts: 1) Generating the shape of the cut (circular, in this example) and 2) Implementing a cut along an arbitrary shape, with several passes if necessary If I can do these two tasks separately, then I have a lot of flexibility, as I could easily cut a square shaped hole in plate, egg shaped, etc. Same applies to "milling out a deep pocket along an arbitrary shape". Generating a shape is one thing, and removing material inside it (in possibly several layers) is another. This kind of approach, has potential for some very fun results. i You're picking up on what CAM software does. CAD provides the design of the part, CAM figures out how to make the part essentially. I think that what I am trying to do, is build a library of functions to provide CAM functionality. ? ?And is a good thing to understand in and of itself. ? That is, when I was taking a class on CNC, we started out having to write the code to move the end mill from point A to point B. ?All the code, all the way. ?From "turn on spindle" to descend, to enter metal, to move to starting point, make pass, exit, etc, etc, etc. ?Once we knew what we wanted, and how it was done, then we moved on to the "neat" CAD/CAM which let us draw the part, then let the program figure out how to mill it. ?Even then, it required us to understand the process. Great approach. Cover the basics first. Since I have a mill, I have to write all codes etc. (and if I cut its table in half accidentally, it will be my loss to eat!) i If, when using one of your programs, you suddenly hit an emergency stop button, does your program stop, also? Then are you able to go back to the operation that stopped and continue on? Something to consider. I am not sure, I will check it out. At the very least, it is very useful to record in non-volatile storage the line number of the G-code step that was started just before the eStop, as that step may be the problem. More generally, I would build a "flight recorder" in, recording say the last 100 codes and their line numbers, the exact time of execution, and an eStop flag to mark where the airplane crashed. Joe Gwinn |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts" / OT spill
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:38:30 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2010-07-23, Bob La Londe wrote: .... Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. However -- Mach 3 requires Windows under it, which Iggy does not care for -- and neither do I -- especially with servos instead of steppers. If you got a BSOD just after issuing a fast move -- the axis or axes would keep going until they hit the overrun stops -- even if it meant moving the cutter (or what was left of it) through the workpiece which happened to be in the way beyond the planned stop point. .... [Following is OT in R.C.M so I adjusted Subject] Some safety systems aboard the Deepwater Horizon were based on Microsoft Windows NT and got frequent BSOD's. Here's an article that suggests that use of Microsoft Windows is partly to blame for sensors and alarms being inhibited aboard the drilling platform: http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-Tech-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Did-BSODs-on-the-Deepwater-Horizon-contribute-to-the-Gulf-oil-disaster http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp/ is an over-the-top article on the same topic. -- jiw |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts" / OT spill
On 2010-07-26, James Waldby wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:38:30 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote: On 2010-07-23, Bob La Londe wrote: ... Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. However -- Mach 3 requires Windows under it, which Iggy does not care for -- and neither do I -- especially with servos instead of steppers. If you got a BSOD just after issuing a fast move -- the axis or axes would keep going until they hit the overrun stops -- even if it meant moving the cutter (or what was left of it) through the workpiece which happened to be in the way beyond the planned stop point. ... [Following is OT in R.C.M so I adjusted Subject] Some safety systems aboard the Deepwater Horizon were based on Microsoft Windows NT and got frequent BSOD's. Here's an article that suggests that use of Microsoft Windows is partly to blame for sensors and alarms being inhibited aboard the drilling platform: http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-Tech-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Did-BSODs-on-the-Deepwater-Horizon-contribute-to-the-Gulf-oil-disaster http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp/ is an over-the-top article on the same topic. I really do not care for Windows.There is one thing that I need to do in Windows -- update maps on my GPS -- and I have been postponing that. i |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts" / OT spill
"Ignoramus1880" wrote in message
... On 2010-07-26, James Waldby wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:38:30 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote: On 2010-07-23, Bob La Londe wrote: ... Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. However -- Mach 3 requires Windows under it, which Iggy does not care for -- and neither do I -- especially with servos instead of steppers. If you got a BSOD just after issuing a fast move -- the axis or axes would keep going until they hit the overrun stops -- even if it meant moving the cutter (or what was left of it) through the workpiece which happened to be in the way beyond the planned stop point. ... [Following is OT in R.C.M so I adjusted Subject] Some safety systems aboard the Deepwater Horizon were based on Microsoft Windows NT and got frequent BSOD's. Here's an article that suggests that use of Microsoft Windows is partly to blame for sensors and alarms being inhibited aboard the drilling platform: http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-Tech-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Did-BSODs-on-the-Deepwater-Horizon-contribute-to-the-Gulf-oil-disaster http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp/ is an over-the-top article on the same topic. I really do not care for Windows.There is one thing that I need to do in Windows -- update maps on my GPS -- and I have been postponing that. Reboot, reboot, reboot. LOL. One thing I like about the version of Ubuntu distributed with EMC2 is that you can set install it over top of Windows and set it up for dual boot so you can go to Windows or Linux as needed. |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts" / OT spill
James Waldby wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:38:30 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote: On 2010-07-23, Bob La Londe wrote: ... Have you looked at Mach 3? It has wizards included that do many of these functions already. It has a number of lines of code limit, and I think you need to register to use the wizards, but its worth a look see. However -- Mach 3 requires Windows under it, which Iggy does not care for -- and neither do I -- especially with servos instead of steppers. If you got a BSOD just after issuing a fast move -- the axis or axes would keep going until they hit the overrun stops -- even if it meant moving the cutter (or what was left of it) through the workpiece which happened to be in the way beyond the planned stop point. ... [Following is OT in R.C.M so I adjusted Subject] Some safety systems aboard the Deepwater Horizon were based on Microsoft Windows NT and got frequent BSOD's. Here's an article that suggests that use of Microsoft Windows is partly to blame for sensors and alarms being inhibited aboard the drilling platform: http://www.examiner.com/x-39728-Tech-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Did-BSODs-on-the-Deepwater-Horizon-contribute-to-the-Gulf-oil-disaster http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp/ is an over-the-top article on the same topic. We have Mazak Qt-250's and multiplex's using w95 for the hmi, thankfully the backend (NC) is a mitsubishi processor. That seems to work. W95 didn't try to do to much. I've had the joy of dealing with a windows based assembly cell. IFix, Kepware, FactoryTalk, yada. What a steaming pile of chit. Oh yes, to stay on theme, our SCHMIDT® Servo Presses are running NT4. Meanwhile back on another line, mostly plc and panelview based, things work fairly well. Another line also plc based with one win hmi app, I think is factory talk, works fine software wise, has issues mechanically but we will figure that out eventually. Windows is fine for desktop apps. It isn't a mission critical OS. Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A realization on "G code scripts" / OT spill
Wes wrote: Windows is fine for desktop apps. It isn't a mission critical OS. NASA uses 'Embedded NT' in some of their telemetry equipment. I would think that the Space Shttle and the ISS were mission critical. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I am looking for a local source for "Rockwool" / "Mineral Wool" /"Safe & Sound" / "AFB" | Home Repair | |||
[OT] Is it "post code" or "postcode" ? | UK diy |