PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
26 Sep 2020 05:48 - 26 Sep 2020 05:49 #183794
by turbodude
PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode was created by turbodude
Hi Guys, I am now testing Fusion 360 posting gcode for PlasmaC which I thought had been working fine but I have hit a snag in a specific scenario that makes me question if tools/materials are being selection accurately.
I have created a material file for PlasmaC that has all of the entries in the Hypertherm PM65 Operator Manual. I can see them all in the Cut Parameters drop down in PlasmaC. Fine so far.
I have created a tool in the F360 tool library (number 37) which matches the material number I want to use in the PlasmaC material file. When I create the gcode from F360 it has an entry for material selection "M190 P37." (I am not sure if the period/full stop is OK there). So, my expectation is that when I load the gcode file into PlasmaC it will call/use material 37 from the PlasmaC material file automatically. Is this correct? If so I am confused…..
My test is as follows:
1) Within PlasmaC, I select a material from the Cut Parameters drop down (25mm mild steel, kerf 2.7mm) and do a manual straight line cut using "Single Cut". All OK.
2) I then load my Gcode file which has some small lead in arcs. The Gcode calls material 37 (3mm mild steel, kerf 1.5mm) and I immediately get an error that says "………Length of cutter compensation entry move is not greater than the tool radius" and I can't proceed.
3) If I choose the correct material (or a thinner, smaller kerf material) from the Cut Parameters drop down and then reload the same gcode file it loads perfectly fine.
It seems that even though the Gcode file is calling a tool/material PlasmaC is wanting to use the material that was previously selected in the Cut Parameter drop down.
I have attached the Gcode file.
Am I missing something?
I have created a material file for PlasmaC that has all of the entries in the Hypertherm PM65 Operator Manual. I can see them all in the Cut Parameters drop down in PlasmaC. Fine so far.
I have created a tool in the F360 tool library (number 37) which matches the material number I want to use in the PlasmaC material file. When I create the gcode from F360 it has an entry for material selection "M190 P37." (I am not sure if the period/full stop is OK there). So, my expectation is that when I load the gcode file into PlasmaC it will call/use material 37 from the PlasmaC material file automatically. Is this correct? If so I am confused…..
My test is as follows:
1) Within PlasmaC, I select a material from the Cut Parameters drop down (25mm mild steel, kerf 2.7mm) and do a manual straight line cut using "Single Cut". All OK.
2) I then load my Gcode file which has some small lead in arcs. The Gcode calls material 37 (3mm mild steel, kerf 1.5mm) and I immediately get an error that says "………Length of cutter compensation entry move is not greater than the tool radius" and I can't proceed.
3) If I choose the correct material (or a thinner, smaller kerf material) from the Cut Parameters drop down and then reload the same gcode file it loads perfectly fine.
It seems that even though the Gcode file is calling a tool/material PlasmaC is wanting to use the material that was previously selected in the Cut Parameter drop down.
I have attached the Gcode file.
Am I missing something?
Last edit: 26 Sep 2020 05:49 by turbodude.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 06:24 #183797
by turbodude
Replied by turbodude on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
I did one more, slightly simpler test to confirm.
1) Within PlasmaC, I select a material from the Cut Parameters drop down (25mm mild steel, kerf 2.7mm) and do a manual straight line cut using "Single Cut". All OK.
2) I then load my Gcode file which has some small lead in arcs. The Gcode calls material 37 (3mm mild steel, kerf 1.5mm) and I immediately get an error that says "………Length of cutter compensation entry move is not greater than the tool radius" and I can't proceed.
3) In Cut Parameters I now change the kerf on the 25mm Mild Steel material from 2.7mm to 1.5mm and save.
4) now load the same GCode file and it works fine.
It certainly seems to want to use the material currently selected in the Cut Parameter rathern than choose the material using the M190 Gcode.
1) Within PlasmaC, I select a material from the Cut Parameters drop down (25mm mild steel, kerf 2.7mm) and do a manual straight line cut using "Single Cut". All OK.
2) I then load my Gcode file which has some small lead in arcs. The Gcode calls material 37 (3mm mild steel, kerf 1.5mm) and I immediately get an error that says "………Length of cutter compensation entry move is not greater than the tool radius" and I can't proceed.
3) In Cut Parameters I now change the kerf on the 25mm Mild Steel material from 2.7mm to 1.5mm and save.
4) now load the same GCode file and it works fine.
It certainly seems to want to use the material currently selected in the Cut Parameter rathern than choose the material using the M190 Gcode.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 06:56 - 26 Sep 2020 06:56 #183799
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
OK, I can see what is happening.
When the file is first loaded it is run through an interpreter for a quick check. This interpreter is using the current material for it's data so is failing because the current materials kerf width is too great for the next move.
If you change this bit of code:
to:It does run fine, that first really short move from (X-4.84808 Y0.69242) to (X-4.47308 Y0.0429) seems to be causing the issue.
There are a couple of other issues:
Line N115 has M5 to finish the first hole but there is no M3 to begin the slot
Line N450 has M5 to finish the last hole but there is no M3 to begin the hex
There are a number of lines with trailing periods, it doesn't seem to affect anything, it just look odd...
When the file is first loaded it is run through an interpreter for a quick check. This interpreter is using the current material for it's data so is failing because the current materials kerf width is too great for the next move.
If you change this bit of code:
N505 G0 X-4.84808 Y0.69242
N510 M3 $0 S1
N515 G41.1 D#<_hal[plasmac_run.kerf-width-f]>
N520 G1 X-4.47308 Y0.0429
N525 X-1.875 Y1.5429to:
N505 G0 X-4.84808 Y0.69242
N510 M3 $0 S1
N515 G41.1 D#<_hal[plasmac_run.kerf-width-f]>
;N520 G1 X-4.47308 Y0.0429
N525 G1 X-1.875 Y1.5429There are a couple of other issues:
Line N115 has M5 to finish the first hole but there is no M3 to begin the slot
Line N450 has M5 to finish the last hole but there is no M3 to begin the hex
There are a number of lines with trailing periods, it doesn't seem to affect anything, it just look odd...
Last edit: 26 Sep 2020 06:56 by phillc54.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 08:51 - 26 Sep 2020 08:53 #183806
by turbodude
Replied by turbodude on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
Thanks Phil,
Regarding the interpreter using the current material, is that just a bug in the code or intended operation for some other reason? I can work around it by manually choosing the material in the dropdown before loading the gcode but just interested to know.
Regarding the missing M3's, can I asumne that the only reason for that can be because of issues with the F360 post processor itself? I didn't hand modify any of the code & the F360 simulation works fine. If so I will mention over on the F360 post processor thread.
Yes I thought the trailing periods looked odd but don't know gcode well enough to question it.
Regarding the interpreter using the current material, is that just a bug in the code or intended operation for some other reason? I can work around it by manually choosing the material in the dropdown before loading the gcode but just interested to know.
Regarding the missing M3's, can I asumne that the only reason for that can be because of issues with the F360 post processor itself? I didn't hand modify any of the code & the F360 simulation works fine. If so I will mention over on the F360 post processor thread.
Yes I thought the trailing periods looked odd but don't know gcode well enough to question it.
Last edit: 26 Sep 2020 08:53 by turbodude.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 08:59 - 26 Sep 2020 09:00 #183810
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
That is just the way that it works. For some reason that postprocessor inserts a short move probably based on what it thinks the diameter (kerfwidth) of the tool is. I don't know if you can change that to either not insert anything or make it longer. There is no real need for it to have that short move because the leadin will take care of the offset. Long story short, if you cannot change it then I can change the gcode parser to do the material change before the interpreter reads it.Thanks Phil,
Regarding the interpreter using the current material, is that just a bug in the code or intended operation for some other reason? I can work around it by manually choosing the material in the dropdown before loading the gcode but just interested to know.
Yes, you will need to get something done about it, it makes for a very interesting cut...Regarding the missing M3's, can I asumne that the only reason for that can be because of issues with the F360 post processor itself? I didn't hand modify any of the code. If so I will mention over on the F360 post processor thread.
No biggie by the looks of it. I was actually surprised that no errors where thrown.Yes I thought the trailing periods looked odd but don't know gcode well enough to question it.
Last edit: 26 Sep 2020 09:00 by phillc54.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 10:22 - 26 Sep 2020 10:35 #183822
by turbodude
Replied by turbodude on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
The lack of M3's seems to be specific to the small hole handling in the post processor. I regenerated the gcode disabling the small hole setting and the M3's are all there now & it cuts fine (obviously with reduced small hole quality). See attached example. I will mention it over on the F360 PP thread.
Thanks for you help again Phil. Much appreciated.
Thanks for you help again Phil. Much appreciated.
Last edit: 26 Sep 2020 10:35 by turbodude. Reason: added file with .txt extension
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 10:31 #183825
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
I did see some comments that indicated a difference from hole mode to normal mode. Maybe you need to switch to normal mode before the slot and the hex or do all the holes first then switch to normal mode before doing the slot, the hex and the perimeter.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 10:34 #183828
by turbodude
Replied by turbodude on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
Yeah I am not clear on whether hole mode is only for circular holes or also for small features that are not curcular. The F360 PP doc that came with the PP does not say.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 10:42 #183830
by phillc54
Replied by phillc54 on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
Unfortunately I can't help you with that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Sep 2020 11:00 #183832
by turbodude
Replied by turbodude on topic PlasmaC doesn't seem to use M190 material call in Gcode
No worries. I'll ask on the F360 PP thread.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: snowgoer540
Time to create page: 0.085 seconds