Possible bug?
- 2e0poz
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 42
- Thank you received: 0
28 Oct 2010 19:32 #4943
by 2e0poz
Possible bug? was created by 2e0poz
Guys
I generated some code using DXFtoGcode and also in GCNCCAM (it does not matter which same result in the end), loaded it and run the the code and worked fine. generate more code for new objects and loaded it and EMC complains about gouging in concave corners. This happens no matter what generator i use and works again if i create a new machine profile (stepconf) then load the code and its fine until i load the next file. The code is good and all i can think of is that the tool compensation is being held in the config of EMC somewhere? The tool table only has one tool in it with the correct diameter of cutter (4.5mm). i've attached the code if you want to see and would appreciate any feedback please it's doing my head in.
I generated some code using DXFtoGcode and also in GCNCCAM (it does not matter which same result in the end), loaded it and run the the code and worked fine. generate more code for new objects and loaded it and EMC complains about gouging in concave corners. This happens no matter what generator i use and works again if i create a new machine profile (stepconf) then load the code and its fine until i load the next file. The code is good and all i can think of is that the tool compensation is being held in the config of EMC somewhere? The tool table only has one tool in it with the correct diameter of cutter (4.5mm). i've attached the code if you want to see and would appreciate any feedback please it's doing my head in.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- 2e0poz
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 42
- Thank you received: 0
28 Oct 2010 19:34 #4944
by 2e0poz
Replied by 2e0poz on topic Re:Possible bug?
ps
The code is just a guide and it does not matter which drawing i use created from any cam software (even mastercam).
The code is just a guide and it does not matter which drawing i use created from any cam software (even mastercam).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BigJohnT
-
- Offline
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 7106
- Thank you received: 1177
28 Oct 2010 20:17 #4948
by BigJohnT
Replied by BigJohnT on topic Re:Possible bug?
The code loads for me with a 0.075" diameter tool but no larger. Do you know when you change the tool table you have to reload it?
John
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- 2e0poz
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 42
- Thank you received: 0
28 Oct 2010 21:10 #4950
by 2e0poz
Replied by 2e0poz on topic Re:Possible bug?
Yes john i reload the table but makes no difference.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- andypugh
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 23310
- Thank you received: 4858
29 Oct 2010 13:33 #4959
by andypugh
Replied by andypugh on topic Re:Possible bug?
Does the code genuinely have radii that the tool can't touch?
I can't view the G-code other than as text here, but your first G2 move looks very tight for a 4.5mm tool.
I can't view the G-code other than as text here, but your first G2 move looks very tight for a 4.5mm tool.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BigJohnT
-
- Offline
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 7106
- Thank you received: 1177
29 Oct 2010 14:40 #4965
by BigJohnT
Replied by BigJohnT on topic Re:Possible bug?
The biggest tool you can use with your code is 1.9mm due to your path being too tight for anything bigger than that.
John
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- 2e0poz
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 42
- Thank you received: 0
29 Oct 2010 15:56 #4966
by 2e0poz
Replied by 2e0poz on topic Re:Possible bug?
I sent the code to a friend to run on Mah3 and it run straight out the box. I'm still confused why it would work fine if i create a new machine profile, it loads straight up and runs without a quibble? Should i be looking at any config files in EMC to see if any change before and after in the scenario i describe? Do machine offsets get written anywhere and not clear properly afterwards? Both the code generators produce similar code and the same thing happens regardless. John you said the code loads fine on yours? T1 is set to 4.5mm in the tool table so still not sure the code can be at fault here. It will have to wait till tomorrow but i will set some smaller bits to see what happens. Just to note the drawing does no appear when i load the code just a small dit in the middle of the table (roughly where start position should be). Thanks for the feedback so far
Paul
Paul
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- andypugh
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 23310
- Thank you received: 4858
29 Oct 2010 16:25 #4967
by andypugh
Replied by andypugh on topic Re:Possible bug?
2e0poz wrote:
But it is wrong.
Your first G2 move demands a 3.182mm diameter hole with diameter compensation active and a 4.5mm dia cutter.
(G2 is clockwise, G42 is cutter to the right)
That is simply not possible, and EMC2 points that out to you.
You say that the code runs fine in Mach, but I rather suspect that after that first move there isn't a 3.182mm diameter hole, there will be either a 4.5mm hole, or possibly a 5.818mm dia hole. The difference is not that Mach is superior to EMC2, but that it doesn't have gouging detection.
If you are trying to leave a 3.182mm dia "peg" then you need to either make the first cut a G3, or use G41 compensation.
T1 is set to 4.5mm in the tool table so still not sure the code can be at fault here.
But it is wrong.
Your first G2 move demands a 3.182mm diameter hole with diameter compensation active and a 4.5mm dia cutter.
(G2 is clockwise, G42 is cutter to the right)
That is simply not possible, and EMC2 points that out to you.
You say that the code runs fine in Mach, but I rather suspect that after that first move there isn't a 3.182mm diameter hole, there will be either a 4.5mm hole, or possibly a 5.818mm dia hole. The difference is not that Mach is superior to EMC2, but that it doesn't have gouging detection.
If you are trying to leave a 3.182mm dia "peg" then you need to either make the first cut a G3, or use G41 compensation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BigJohnT
-
- Offline
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 7106
- Thank you received: 1177
29 Oct 2010 19:12 - 29 Oct 2010 19:12 #4969
by BigJohnT
Replied by BigJohnT on topic Re:Possible bug?
2e0poz wrote:
Only that portion of g code that is runnable (no errors in coding) will display on the back plot. As soon as the error is discovered then the preview stops loading at that point and does not try and load any more. As Andy pointed out your code may run on other systems without gouge protection but you will not like the part when it is done.
John
Just to note the drawing does no appear when i load the code just a small dit in the middle of the table (roughly where start position should be). Thanks for the feedback so far
Paul
Only that portion of g code that is runnable (no errors in coding) will display on the back plot. As soon as the error is discovered then the preview stops loading at that point and does not try and load any more. As Andy pointed out your code may run on other systems without gouge protection but you will not like the part when it is done.
John
Last edit: 29 Oct 2010 19:12 by BigJohnT.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- 2e0poz
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 42
- Thank you received: 0
30 Oct 2010 11:08 #4970
by 2e0poz
Replied by 2e0poz on topic Re:Possible bug?
Guys
i think i understand now and can see i will be a while in getting to grips. As for Mach being more superior that i feel not, i do like the sound of the protection i am actually getting from EMC. I will have a play with the tools today and would like to thank you for clearing this up. This is what makes EMC a great community and not just a tool.
Many thanks
Paul
i think i understand now and can see i will be a while in getting to grips. As for Mach being more superior that i feel not, i do like the sound of the protection i am actually getting from EMC. I will have a play with the tools today and would like to thank you for clearing this up. This is what makes EMC a great community and not just a tool.
Many thanks
Paul
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.073 seconds