I am an idiot...3D Probe with Probe Basic

"Correct, If you're just starting with probe routines in probe basic, it will become clear once you use them a bit why being near the work is important."

Don't keep me in suspense, do tell....

Seems like waste of effort to HAVE TO jog down to the workpiece.

#<z> = #5422

It is getting the current z position every time, and if it Max Z is greater than the current position it gives the over-travel error. It needs to subtract current position from Max Z and check if it is in range, to work to my intents.

Also the macros in my version have the same date as the new work, so I am not sure how that would get rid of the messages. But I am not messing with a working install to get rid of them, I just need to know how to comment them out, and where to go to do so. Can it really be that hard, to tell someone how to comment out a line of code that calls a message. Forgive my lack of constraint, but I find trivial things to be over-complicated due to a lack of well thought out responses. Or perhaps either you do not know, or do not want to tell me.

If anyone knows anything at all, that is a real help, please chime in.

Seems like waste of effort to HAVE TO jog down to the workpiece.

you don't HAVE TOO, you can use which ever method works best for you.  But eyeballing corners or work rough centers for starting probe points within hints etc from 18 inches above the work piece for me isn't effective, maybe you are better at it and can find success there, I need to see the probe closer to the work.  doesn't mean either method is wrong, you just happen to be using a probe routine written by a person who does it that way (me..lol) so of course the routine will cater more to that method then the other.  you can change to suit and if you find it an improvement submit a pull request and we can review test and add it to the latest release.

It is getting the current z position every time, and if it Max Z is greater than the current position it gives the over-travel error. It needs to subtract current position from Max Z and check if it is in range, to work to my intents.

Again, this is to suit YOUR desires but does not conform to mine, i want finite control based on probing alone and not used as a z axis limit which is essentially what you would end up with by rewriting it to your method.  I use the max z when doing more unique probing such that i ensure i do not hit the probe body when near a ledges edge or similar.  if i were to incorporate your method this would no longer function this way.  i want to save the probe from a crash in the work and not just in the table at z full minus travel.  but again you can edit the probe macros as you desire that's why they were kept as an easy to work with RS274NGC language rather then using Python.  to make changing and editing them easier to suit individuals needs.  you can find a great reference here for the code used:

RS274NGC Reference Document

Also the macros in my version have the same date as the new work, so I am not sure how that would get rid of the messages.

I have an updated set of macros and will push them to the latest git, I checked and somehow they were overwritten by a previous change, correcting that now, should be up in a few minutes.  you can run a compare using meld or the like to see the changes that removed the debug message pop ups for the probed points.

Chris

changes are up on git, you can copy over the files with today's date in the subroutine folder and they should fix the popups!

So let me try to get this across in simple terms. IF, big if here, if the routine was to know the Z maximum travel based upon the starting point of the probing function. Then once it actually probes the part, then it was to reference the current position of Z, then it would clearly be able to do the math and determine the 0.25" it is away from the top of the part would not be too far to travel. The issue to me is that it looks like Z can still go down almost 10 inches.Instead of the new position being -9.75". Hope this makes sense.

If this does NOT make sense, then I don't see how to write it any different. IN THIS INSTANCE ... I have the same amount of Z travel this way for the probing operation, I can start from 1/4" away from the top part to any measurement UP TO the Max Z height.Looks to me like Z minimum should be a thing instead of Max, but please fill me in if I am missing something. If I am concerned my probe is going to crash against the part because I have a measurement wrong, this kind of TO ME makes the concept harder to grasp. Since its job is to "find" the surface.

Lcvette wrote:

changes are up on git, you can copy over the files with today's date in the subroutine folder and they should fix the popups!
 

Please don't assume I know what you are referring to. Do I replace the probing routines from the SUBROUTINES folder, this should be all I need?

Thank You!

Copy over the Individual files with today's date from the probe_basic subroutine folder and replace only those files, they have the edits needed.

Done, worked, Thank YOU!

Great! As to the max z travel, it's meant to be a set per probe Incident. If you don't want to probe using it, then set it up as I stated to skip it in the routine if set to zero. Then just adjust as needed when you want to use it.

So I am trying to probe a PCB, which is 1.5mm thick, but the probe drops down too far. The EXTRA PROBE DEPTH should be able to accept a negative number to compensate for this.

What do I change to set the depth the probe drops below the Z height. I could lay something of a known thickness on top of the PCB but that defeats the purpose.

This really needs to be implemented in the UI, maybe I am not seeing something???

It uses the probe tip diameter for the base depth which is standard, if you need less you would typically use a stylus ball suited to the requirement. But I think that idea to allow negative number in Calc is worthwhile to investigate.

I'm away from dev, but in the interim, you can use the straight probe functions which don't require z to move at all during probing, or like you mentioned, use a shim.