Post Toasty

[MetalMarvels]

I recently updated to MC9.1 SP2 and am vetting the newest version of MPFADAL2.pst for use in the shop. During a rigid tap post, I ran into an anomaly that I have not yet been able to resolve.

 

Using the previous version of MPFADAL2 (4/21/03)I get the following:

 

N70 ( #2-56 TAPRH TOOL - 8 DIA. OFF. - 8 LEN. - 8 DIA. - .086 ) psof ptoolcomment 42

N80 T8 M6 psof 42

N90 G0 G90 S1120.2 M5 M90 E1 X1.0157 Y-.3626 psof 42

N100 H8 Z.25 M8.1 psof 42

N110 G84.1 G98 Z-.265 R0.1 S1120.2 F20. pmisc2 46

N120 X2.0011 pmisc2_2 48

 

 

The latest version of MPFADAL2 (5/28/03)gives me the following:

 

N60 ( #2-56 TAPRH TOOL - 8 DIA. OFF. - 8 LEN. - 8 DIA - .086 ) psof p__1:570 42

N70 T8 M6 psof 42

N80 G0 G90 S1120.2 M5 M90 E1 X1.0157 Y-.3626 psof p__12:678 42

N90 H8 Z.25 M8.1 psof 42

N100 G84.1 G98 X1.0157 Y-.3626 Z-.265 R0.1 S1120.2 F20. pmisc2 46

N110 X2.0011 S1120 pmisc2_2 48

 

 

Both post processors were run on the same operation from the same file using MC 9.1 SP2. I have checked both posts and the pmisc2 entries are identical.

 

The repeat of the X and Y positions in line N100 and the repeat of the speed in line N110 are my particular concerns. I don't need the repeat of the X Y and the repeat of the spindle speed frankly scares me in a FADAL controller.

 

Any ideas where I should look to fix this one????

[Guest]

Go to the pmisc2 post block and change the pfxout and pfyout to pxout and pyout.

 

HTH

[MetalMarvels]

Thanks, Marc!! I was looking RIGHT AT it the whole time and just couldn't see it..... I was comparing the two posts in a split window in CIMCO. Just could not see that sucker - picture me banging forehead on wall........

 

Many Thanks!!!

 

I can go take some ADVIL now

 

Now for the second Speed call....

 

[ 11-11-2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: MetalMarvels ]

[Guest]

Your Welcome

[MetalMarvels]

Marc, I have run several tests and your suggestion works great. I ran a multi-point rigid-tap cyle call and I still have the second spindle speed callout though in line N56:

 

N50 G0 G90 S1120.2 M5 M90 E1 X.5 Y.4 ptlchg p__17:744 96

N52 H2 Z.25 M8.1 ptlchg 96

N54 G84.1 G98 Z-.27 R0.1 S1120.2 F20. pmisc2 100

N56 X.8 Y.1 S1120 pmisc2_2 102

N58 X1.1 Y-.2 pmisc2_2 104

N60 X1.4 Y-.5 pmisc2_2 106

N62 G80 pcanceldc 108

 

 

I will keep hacking on this one....

 

[ 11-11-2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: MetalMarvels ]

[MetalMarvels]

OK I think I got the "second" instance of the spindle speed posting figured out. In the pmisc2 post block, the spindle speed is "*tap_speed" rather than "speed". In the pmisc2_2 post block, the spindle speed is set by "speed". I changed the pmisc2_2 entry to "tap_speed". It now sees the 2nd "hole" as a repeat and therefore doesn't output the spindle speed.

 

pmisc2 #Canned Misc #2 Cycle - G84.1/G74.1

pdrlcommonb

feed = (1 / n_tap_thds) * speed

pbld, n, *sgdrill, *sgdrlref, pxout, pyout, pfzout, pcout,

prdrlout, *tap_speed, *feed, e

pcom_movea

.......................

 

pmisc2_2 #Canned Misc #2 Cycle

pdrlcommonb

feed = (1 / n_tap_thds) * speed

pbld, n, sgdrill, sgdrlref, pxout, pyout, pzout, pcout,

prdrlout, tap_speed, feed, e

pcom_movea

 

 

I am making the rash assumption that since pmisc2 output "tap_speed" rather than "speed", the 1st iteration of pmisc2_2 would be looking for "tap_speed" rather than "speed" as the condition for not outputing a number. It works....