Transform Rotate Absolute Subprograms

[jvarney]

I'm using the mpmaster post on a VMC with 4th axis to program simple slots at 30 increments around a part.  Is there any easier way to post out absolute subprograms?  Currently, I'm posting it with incremental subprograms so the main program is correct then posting it with absolute so I can cut and paste the first absolute subprogram.  Otherwise, I just have 12 of the same subprograms with different numbers.  We do this daily and it's alot of time spent doing these little edits.

[Guest]

Are you outputting 30 offsets?

 

If not how can you have absolute subs?

[jvarney]

No offsets, I'm just rotating in A and calling the sub every 30 degrees.

[Sticky]

Absolute subs, IMO, has never worked properly (I've only used X5-X8). We just end up using incremental subs. I don't like it, but it does work. You just need to make sure the monkeys know what they are doing if they interrupt the program and restart it.

[slyym]

He's only rotating in A though.

[djstedman]

Are you rotating using tool plane? Or coordinate?

 

Is there some reason other than not liking incremental that you would make it absolute?

 

When I do mine I use tool plane to spit out the rotation of the A axis, then make it an incremental sub,  then I get rotation of the A axis in the main program and one incremental sub that is called for each tiem the A Axis indexes.

[jvarney]

Tool plane.  Yes, that's how I'm doing it now.  Just seems like it would be an easy thing to spit out absolute subprograms for a 2-dimensional feature.

[djstedman]

Yeah, I am not sure exactly why it doesn't handle absolute the same as incremental in this particular circumstance, it seems like it should, but then again I am guessing there is probably some other situation that would break if this one behaved that way.

 

Anyhow sometimes its easier to work with it the way it is than to fight with the post to try and make it write code like you would by hand. That's why I just gave in a long time ago and went with incremental sub programs.

[Sticky]

The main risk with incremental subs is someone interrupting the program, and botching the restart. Also if you are used to proving out absolute programs incremental values seem counter intuitive.

[djstedman]

Perhaps I expect too much from people.. but considering the mpmaster post outputs a G90 move to location at each toolchange I cant see how they could botch it, I mean even if you had to make it jump to one particular slot in the middle of the transform operation, you would still have to run the toolchange to get your initial position and your tool offset.

 

As for proving out programs, I cant really argue that.. absolute numbers are nicer to know what is going on.. no doubt. . but hey.. that's why you make sure everything looks good in verify before it ever goes to the machine.

 

Then again the machine's I am currently running are so operator unfriendly and with the coolant you cant see a damned thing inside once the coolant is on.. so it better be right anyhow or absolute vs incremental will be the least of my worries.

[Sticky]

Perhaps I expect too much from people.. but considering the mpmaster post outputs a G90 move to location at each toolchange I cant see how they could botch it, I mean even if you had to make it jump to one particular slot in the middle of the transform operation, you would still have to run the toolchange to get your initial position and your tool offset.

 

As for proving out programs, I cant really argue that.. absolute numbers are nicer to know what is going on.. no doubt. . but hey.. that's why you make sure everything looks good in verify before it ever goes to the machine.

 

Then again the machine's I am currently running are so operator unfriendly and with the coolant you cant see a damned thing inside once the coolant is on.. so it better be right anyhow or absolute vs incremental will be the least of my worries.

 

I've only had one issue with an operator messing something up with incremental subs, he wiped out a large Lang chip fan, luckily he stopped it before the spindle or tool holder hit anything. I have had a couple operators have a couple close calls though.

 

I'd rather just have absolute subs. That way the program code looks just like your position and distance to go values when you are proving things out, and there is no real risk of people not restarting programs incorrectly while in incremental mode.

 

It's just one more thing for new operators to struggle with.