A Widescreen Blender-Style Interface

What kind a license has this project, I don't recall it being stated.

I think I understand what you are saying now, you are thinking to just show the tool measurement beneath the "collet" because the router has the er collet as its spindle....

here is why i think that is a bad idea, its one of those situations where it goes one way ok but not the other..iots fine if you have an er collet router spindle... but could cause some big issues if you don't.

if someone new to cnc with a TTS type tool holder sees that and isn't quite clear on what they are doing yet and starts measuring tools the way you want it displayed, but has an er16 tool holder and an er20 tool holder which are different lengths, even though they measure the tools from the er collet nut down, the over all tool length offsets will be wrong. there are many method to measure tools for holder users. some of these methods are offline not on a machine. this is where problems might arise and crashes that could damage the machine or cause harm could come into play. especially someone starting out who may not have the correct tools to measure and may be using calipers or something they really shouldn't be anyhow. I don't think that's a wise idea, as it is going to almost certainly break tools and ruin work pieces at the very least.

the spindle gauge line is ALWAYS the measuring point because its the fixed location on the z axis that never moves and remains constant.

my second argument would be that not all routers have an er collet spindle, so making a "Router" graphic specifically that way wouldn't technically be correct either. many routers have iso20 or bt30 spindles.

Iast, even those with ER collet spindles at least my friends who run them most have adopted some method to try and repeat the tool heights when mounting the tools whether its a collar on the tool or by going to an upgraded spindle taper.

those who are die hard ER collet users and don't upgrade generally use a touch plate of sorts to do an auto touch off after changing the tool which then records the new tool length offset and off they go. in this case, the Z height isn't entered manually to my knowledge or if it is the number is only used as a close estimate.

Well, I don't mean it to be ER specific, either. If a bit was put into a R8 collet, or a MT, I would like to know how far from the tip to the collet, so the bit can be replaced, when dull.

In the end, a manual change user is going to touch off from tool to workpeice or test area, but for replacing the bit, it would be nice to know how much stickout there should be to get it in the ballpark.

BrendaEM wrote:

Well, I don't mean it to be ER specific, either. If a bit was put into a R8 collet, or a MT, I would like to know how far from the tip to the collet, so the bit can be replaced, when dull.

In the end, a manual change user is going to touch off from tool to workpeice or test area, but for replacing the bit, it would be nice to know how much stickout there should be to get it in the ballpark.

Generally, these are all measurements that are recorded in the cam. I think it would be great to have a reference in the controller as well, I thought that's what you were going to add in initially, but if you are going to rely solely on n the existing tool table, there are only two inputs currently available. You would have to add or code additional information into linuxcnc I believe to record any additional data that was column specific. Otherwise you'll have to add it in the comments section in the name.

I currently name my tools with quite a bit of information for this reason so I can verify the tool by more that just it's number. For example:

Tool 3: 1/2" 3FL-EM 1.00"-LOC 1.375"-SO CRB

BrendaEM wrote:

Well, I don't mean it to be ER specific, either. If a bit was put into a R8 collet, or a MT

I would pose anyone cnc'd running an R8 or MT spindle will migrate to TTS tooling, it's a natural progression for anyone who uses their machine more than once every couple of months, the benefits of repeatable holders makes cam and machine work so much easier it becomes a must have. And the frustration level without it is enough to drive even the most frugal hobbiest to pony up at least for the chinese versions available or make their own.

If you are doing this on the cheap, machine a collar/sleeve/washer/etc... and either press, or glue it onto your individual tools. Depending on how you value your time, this can be really cheap, or free, depending on what is in your scrap box. Loctite type bearing adhesive works really well when gluing a collar or sleeve to a tool.

Saying that, now that I have several of them, I really like my TTS holders. They are a lot cheaper than some other tool holding setups, and easier to set up and measure than the previously mentioned method.

Just to be clear, I not going to propose an CNC interface that requires a certain type of collet, or a minimum collet/tool holding standard. I want the interface to support ATC and Taper-type holding standards, but I want it to support collets as well. That it.

I will be on-going working on new Settings Menu, but I am going to revisit the Tool Menu, and I am going make enough room for additional controls for ATC.

Though, I've identified a problem: the tool name shown in the progressive indicator is too short. Currently, the progressive indicators have 2 rows of text in them: a label/legend and a value. Currently, the indicators are 256 pixels across, which go most of the way across the machine-specific panels for both the Mill and Lathe. The tool name shown, is too short.

Last night, I came up with 2 fixes, adding settings for: omitting the tool-number, and/or using a smaller font on the name. I don't feel this is enough.

I like the tool-specific panel to be a vertical strip, oddly, just the way it is in Axis, using progressive incrementers like in Gmoccapy. So, what I think needs to be done: add a third row of text. I don't like making a control that only gets used once, because it's bad for the programmer(s) and bad for the user but I don't see another option. Also, this control will look different than the others because it will be taller. The tool name can have a certain amount of characters a space and more characters. The lines will wrap on the control. This also introduces a usability issue as certain characters such as WWWW is much wider than Hill and it does make a difference with proportional fonts.

I still like the incrementer design in that it shows the user the position, in the changer, on the shelf, whereever, and how many clicks to go, to select a tool if they are impromptu machining, not under gcode.

I am going to experiment with a taller control, as well as miniature version of the control set that is used in the Tools menu. Originally, I wanted to have a mini-icon shown for the tool as well, so you can also see the tool or at least the tip in the machine-specific controls on the right portion on the screen.

andypugh wrote:

The length reference isn't necessarily from the gauge line of the taper. Quite often it will be relative to the probe-tool. for example.

On my mill the reference is the machine table when the tool is in the setting hole. I don't know, or care. whether the holder gauge line is actually level with the table. It just needs to be a consistent reference.

Many lathes have a tool table relative to a "master" tool, which is always kept with zeros in the offsets. Then the G54 (etc) offset is the number needed to make that tool turn a true diameter.

Andy,

I was speaking to Kurt about this the other day and the possibility of using the G43.2 offset to possibly use the probe as the master tool in a master tool mode where it would have a true physical tool length along with all other tools to the spindle gauge line, but its offset would be used in conjunction with other tools called up to act in the same manner you described above. in this manner it could be used as a toggle perhaps turned on or off by the user which would then act so that when the probe was used to probe a corner and the "master tool mode" toggle was active, G43.2 would be used and all tool offsets would be the difference of the probe offset and tool offset. basically working the same as the lathe approach you referred to above.

the benefit to this method is that if for any reason a tool or probe tool needed to be changed or remeasured for any reason, the calculation is automatically updated without the need to remeasure all of your tooling afterwards. to those of us with large tool libraries that is very important as having to remeasure tools in the event of a broken probe tip, broken probe etc is not something you want to have to do and of course would always happen at the most inopportune time.

Brenda,

another thought from experience on other systems that may prove helpful in this blending is the use of Repeatable Holders (RH) and Non-Repeatable Holders (NRH) and a way to select between the two may be useful for displaying the way the tool is shown measured as well as for automatic measuring functionality. ie, a RH would bypass a tool length check where a NRH would be measured on a touchplate etc. this was how a previous system i used functions and it was very much loved by many both router and mill users.

the other thought I had but would be getting a bit more elaborate would be to add the "option" to display a holder the tool image display. this could be purely cosmetic and would cater to more people i suppose. or have the router gui without the holder and an er spindle nose showing and the mill interface with the holder graphic.

for the Tool Page, I would suggest adding a button for a table view, i definitely would still want access to see the whole tool library at a glance rather than having to scroll through it. I think tooling is important enough to warrant its own page for input maybe where it has no need of the jogging estop panels etc... where it is just used for data entry, this would give you plenty of room for the keyboard, the graphics and everything else needed to display anything that may be confusing regarding the tooling. for the milling folks that is much of an issue, but the lathe people...geez.. that is a whole different ball of wax, that really does need some serious pictograph representation and that tiny box in my opinion isn't enough to make it work. I would put some consideration into that. I think there should be some diagrams that bring the orientation chart into it as well as the chuck and some tooling graphics with axis lines, it really needs it to descript the offsets in a manner that is easy to interpret in my opinion. I think this would go a long ways to making the GUI more user friendly.

I started trying to draw it up in the space i thought would be legible in that box and I just don't see how I could make it sensible at a glance. and pictures being worth a thousand words, they still need some space to make their case.. im a poet!

thoughts?

I think that creating a touch-friendly tool table may be too much work for the first version because it would be menu pages replacing others. Everything has to be kept track of.

People wanted a visual representation of the tools, but some compromises have to be made.

I appreciate the alternate techniques for discrete bits, though I indeed want support for just plain milling bits.