- Posts: 19311
- Thank you received: 4655
There was a change made to the development branch (normally called "master", sometimes 2.6) that allowed this syntax for a tool change.emcPT wrote: 1) One year ago, calling a tools in a lathe had a syntax different from the Fanucs, okumas, ..., that I really like. T0405 for example. It was necessary to use a D word. I also remember that the tool data table was hard to figure out as it was initial made for milling. From what I remember to read this is now implemented. Can it be confirmed?
There is a workaround for this using coordinate system rotation. I haven't tried it, but at least one chap seemed happy with it as a solution.2) The lathe that I will retrofit have the tools upside the Z zero (far away from the user). This is the most usual in cnc lathes, I think. I remember that in axis it was not possible to see the tools like that, and they would be seen in reverse. What is the current status?
It would be very easy to control live tooling with user-defined M-codes for example. M103 P1000 for clockwise at 1000 rpm. www.linuxcnc.org/docs/2.5/html/gcode/m-c...tml#sec:M100-to-M1993) Although not very important to me to use the live tooling, it would be a waist to let them go. It would value a lot the machine and will make it more versatile. Anyone knows about someone that is using them on a lathe? I understand that this will imply a lot about the spindle and so on, but I was wondering if this was already addressed.
Yes. Axis is still hard. However it is entirely possible to create your own GUI from scratch (though it is a lot of work). Alternatively Chris' "GScreen" GUI is written in Glade and can be easily modified.4) I also remember that changing something on the visual looks of the axis front end was something that was hard. It is still hard?
Not implemented. I don't know what happened to that work. Again they _could_ be added with the remapping technique mentioned earlier.5) Cycles. Mainly the G71 G72 G73 (in respect to the Fanuc) . They were not implemented one year ago, but I read a discussion where it seams to be already implemented. True or false?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Actually I think it will be quite easy.emcPT wrote: I will not try to use the live tooling, at least for now as it will be hard to implement
If it works with +/-10V then you can use that. Mine works with 0-10V and direction inputs, but that too is relatively easy.my current concern is the VFD. Until now I only used +-10V to control the output speed of the VFD. What is the best way to control them?
The 7i33TA has 4 x analogue outputs, which sounds like enough to control the X and Z axes, plus the spindle VFD and the live-tooling. You also have enough encoder inputs for tha axes, and a spindle encoder, with one spare, possibly for the toolchanger.The Mesa hardware (if is relevant for the answer) that I have is: x1 5120; x1 7133TA and x1 7137TA
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
andypugh wrote: Is there any reason not to re-use the existing spindle drive?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
emcPT wrote:
andypugh wrote: I would LOVE to use the current spindle motor as it is built in the spindle. This is very good as no belts are present. The reason is that the spindle motor drive is damaged, being this one of the reasons to start the conversion. Even if it was not damaged the protocol to the main drive is for sure "closed".
I searched a lot and I could not found any possibility off using the current motor spindle as it seams it is proprietary from Okuma.
There are only a few possible designs of motor, and there are ways to drive all of them with LinuxCNC.
Do you know what type of motor it is? Any pictures? What connectors are there?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.