Machine, Control Def, and Post survey

[Chris Rizzo]

Curious as to peoples opinions regarding mmd,control, and pst setup.

[GoetzInd]

Ah the good ol days when all you had to worry about was a post.

 

Mike

[Newbeeee™]

Once everything is set-up, then its not noticeable. It just took a bit of setting, and understanding

I do like the idea of being able to swap between machine types and then just post. So yes, I guess to me it's better.

[Mick]

Interesting results so far

 

There is no difference between being able to switch between machine definitions, and posting, and the old way of switching between posts, and posting. Actually, to me, just using the old post, is far more easier, (and less headaches)

[Dan@home]

Using V9 then switching to X was easy. When updating to new versions of X is where the major problems start. It is no longer easy as it was.

 

PS. I don't care for the new post editor. seems you have to know how write the post first before you can use it. The Bosses will not spend the time or $$ to have you learn it. I miss the old way!!! SIMPLE.

[Mgrenier]

Using V9 then switching to X was easy. When updating to new versions of X is where the major problems start. It is no longer easy as it was.

 

Tell me about it it's a PITA to redefine the .control file to the new post and then re-adjust each page...

[K2csq7]

My biggest gripe is not knowing where to change stuff...

 

here?

#Arc output settings
breakarcs$   : 1 	#Break arcs, 0 = no, 1 = quadrants, 2 = 180deg. max arcs

arcoutput$   : 1 	#0 = IJK, 1 = R no sign, 2 = R signed neg. over 180   

 

or in the control def under arc output?

 

here?

#Output formatting
top_map 	: 0 	#Output toolplane toolpaths mapped to top view						
               	#The post must have code added for your machine control
spaces$  	: 1 	#No. of spaces to add between fields
pang_output : 0 	#Angle output options, primary                                 	
sang_output : 0 	#Angle output options, secondary
               	#0 = Normal angle output
               	#1 = Signed absolute output, 0 - 360
               	#2 = Implied shortest direction absolute output, 0 - 360

 

or in the machine component manager for the rotary????

 

here?

#Feed control settings
convert_rpd$ : 0 	#Convert rapid to rapid feed
use_fr  	: 0 	#Output feedrate
               	#0 - programmed feedrate 
               	#1 - inverse feedrate
               	#2 - inverse feedrate on 5 axis continuous
               	#3 - inverse feedrate on motion with rotary

 

or in the feed section of the control def???

 

I won't take up any more space, but it sure seems like it was simpler.... It seems like there is no known list of what exactly is handled by the post and what exactly is handled by the mach/control def. these days.

[mayday]

Would be nice if CNC conducted these polls before they decide to total eff up a working system.

I have had nothing but problems with control def's ghosting old pst files and control files.

The guys that write the code know how to fix the problems but do you think we will see documentation on correcting things? NOT

[spade117]

I like the newer style. I think I've learned more about how it all processes this way. We also have multpile different types of machines, so it has been useful in that aspect as well.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Would be nice if CNC conducted these polls before they decide to total eff up a working system.

I have had nothing but problems with control def's ghosting old pst files and control files.

The guys that write the code know how to fix the problems but do you think we will see documentation on correcting things? NOT

 

Focus groups BEOFRE committing serious coding man hours to something would be a huge step forward. I understand the need for MD/CD machines that have rotary axes but for 3-Axis machines... complete overkill and about as unnecessary as as a feature could get.

[Chris Rizzo]

over 500 views and only a few dozen votes? ahhh come on!

[Mr. Wizzard]

Only have a few simple machines here, so it's not too bad. If I was in a shop starting from scratch and had a dozen or so different machines, I would absolutely hate to set it up.

 

Once you have it set up it's great, until you update to the latest release......

 

It's a huge PITA to do changes or tweaks. Where does it need changed? MD, CD, or pst? Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both? I think that, at times, too much focus is not on the functionality of the software, but eyecandy.

 

Instead of being excited about new updates, I find myself loathing the upgrade. How many days will it take me to sort out post errors because of new parameters or outdated ones? How do i update MD's and CD's? What folder did they get moved to? How do i go back in and link them all together? How many times will I have to send it to the reseller to send it to In_House just to get something working that worked before and now does not?

 

By the time i get everything sorted out and running smoothly, I have 6 months before I have to do it all over again.

 

That's my biggest complaint. Once you get it working, it's great, but you have to redo it every couple of months if you wanna stay current. And I only have 4 to deal with. I feel for the guys with MT machines and complex set-ups.

 

There's got to be a smoother way. Just my 2 cents......

[rdshear]

My biggest gripe is not knowing where to change stuff...

 

 

+1

[Tim Johnson]

I'm indifferent to the machine def/control def/post trinity. Once you understand that they are all parts of one file then it's not a big deal. I would figure you God Boys should love it.

 

I understand the need for MD/CD machines that have rotary axes but for 3-Axis machines... complete overkill and about as unnecessary as as a feature could get.

 

Making multiple systems for different machines could turn into a real clusterf**k to manage as the trinity evolves in my opinion. The three axis machines also need very little tweaking from the machine/control out of the box anyway.

[K2csq7]

How do we know what takes precedence?

If there is the same option to change something in both the (MD or CD) and the post how do we know where to make the change?

 

arc type

break arcs

inverse feed

angle head settings misc real vs. aggregate settings in MD

sequence #'s

axis limits

feedrate limits

rotation output type

rotary axis names

rotary axis zeros and rotate about which axis

 

just a few off the top of my head...

[Mr. Wizzard]

^^^^^^+100000000

 

That's all I'm asking. There's progressively more "functionality" with every release, but it seems to be getting way more confusing and not more streamlined. I suck at editing post, but I'm trying. What makes it worse is changing something in the MD and getting no posted code change. Then, I try the CD, nothing. Then throw some darts at the post and see what sticks..... Sometimes it works with one and not the other two. Sometimes it only works if you set 2 of the 3, why?

 

Maybe I'm just too dumb for this

[Thee Rickster ™]

Doesn't matter what defaults I change in toolpaths in the controll def, they stick for a day or 2 then

I am right back to changing them again and saving with the hope that they will stick. (highspeed paths are my most used)

 

Done it so many times I gave up and just pick every single thing I need which each path when creating them

 

Waste of time and a PITA (:edit: referring to doing it over and over when I should know its not going to stick after the 1st fail)

[K2csq7]

Waste of time and a PITA

 

I know we shouldn't feel that way, rrrr it shouldn't be that way...

Really though there has got to be something that says "this overwrites/overrules that"

 

 

How do we know what takes precedence?

If there is the same option to change something in both the (MD or CD) and the post how do we know where to make the change?

[Thee Rickster ™]

Maybe I am doing something wrong and need a manual of how to do it properly.??? :shrug:

[Dave.L]

over 500 views and only a few dozen votes? ahhh come on!

 

 

Hey Chris,

 

With all due respect, do you really think the poll with change anything?

[Chris Rizzo]

Hi Dave, oh yeah there's no hope of changing anything. I'm just trying to prove that complexity-for-complexities sake really doesn't get us anything.

[Hellz_Bellz]

Chris Rizzo,

 

Great poll. I agree with Keith A-1 and others in this thread. I would just like to have one set of rules for what post parameter is being controlled by the MD or CD or post processor. JM2C.

 

Peter Scott (old member #1300)

[Jon @ NOWHERE]

My company switched to Mastercam when X came out so I have no idea how it used to be. My one wish is that CNC software would make a book or reference material for creating posts and make it available to its customers(with valid sims) without the need to go through their reseller. I also wish In-House would make a book on posts similar to their Mastercam training books. With all that said I am not sure how to participate in the poll as I am slowly delving into this stuff, and with all things that you are learning for the first time problems are to be expected. So I don't feel I should vote, other than saying that being new to all this it is confusing as he!!.

[Chris Rizzo]

other than saying that being new to all this it is confusing as he!!

 

Not to sway your vote, but the "old" system was infinitely easier to use.

[Mr. Wizzard]

complexity-for-complexities sake really doesn't get us anything.

 

Uh, duh. They call it "functionality" now.