A unique way to program

[ahaslam]

Where to even start?

How much of this could I get MasterCAM to spit out?

Is there a way to turn everything after a tool change into a sub-program?

This is kind of a side project to see if I can actually do it, so no rush but any help would be appreciated.

 

:1000( PART PROGRAM )

M68

M98P6100 (call offsets) 

M98P8061 (call tool comp)

N1 (used for quick find of operation)

M6T1 (call up tool)

M1

(ENDMILL)

G54P1

M98P2010 (sub program = t#*10+2000 and +1 at each operation[the second time that tool is called would be 2011])

M6T1 (Recall first tool)

M9

G91G30Y0Z0M19 (go home)

M30

 

:2010( ENDMILL )

G0G90X.225Y0.001

G43H1Z2.S6800M13 (m13 = M3+ M9)

Z.1

G1Z-0.06F48.

X-5.5

G0Z2.

M1

M99 (end sub program)

 

:6100( VISE OFFSET PROGRAM )

G10G90L2P1X0.000Y0.000Z0.000( FIXTURE OFFSET - G54 )

M99

 

:8061( TOOL OFFSET PROGRAM )

G10G90L11P1R-0.000( 1/4 ENDMILL )

M99

[Tim Johnson]

Your Mastercam post can spit out all of that and more, but it will take some time and effort to get it the way you want. To create sub-programs do a search for "subout" or subout$ in this forum (forums) and your "post reference guide" (not sure of the exact wording for the manual).

[ahaslam]

Okay, I'll look into it. Thanks!

[bd41612]

Unless you have an issue with memory capacity, or using the sub in many different programs, you may want to avoid this.  I find it better to have everything in one program, that way you are not populating the directory with a maze of program numbers to keep track of.  However, I do use sub programs from time to time.  And, on big files, dataserver.

[ahaslam]

I got the post to work perfectly.

 

 

Unless you have an issue with memory capacity, or using the sub in many different programs, you may want to avoid this.  I find it better to have everything in one program, that way you are not populating the directory with a maze of program numbers to keep track of.  However, I do use sub programs from time to time.  And, on big files, dataserver.

 

 

I have made comments to the company about the way they do things. This is the way they want to do it.

[tim_h]

I remember doing this kind of programming. It was a long time ago... in a galaxy far far away...

 

At the time we did most all of our programming AT the machine with blueprints. 20+ years ago

 

Old school maybe ??

[ahaslam]

 Very old school. It has its place.

[Tim Johnson]

Unless you have an issue with memory capacity, or using the sub in many different programs, you may want to avoid this.  I find it better to have everything in one program, that way you are not populating the directory with a maze of program numbers to keep track of.  However, I do use sub programs from time to time.  And, on big files, dataserver.

All of my programs have from 5 to 80 subs. I find it much less complicated to just program one part and let router subprograms dictate when to call up tool path subprograms as they are needed for however many parts are needed per cycle. I understand this process isn't for everyone but it does fit us very well.

[ahaslam]

I agree with Tim, sometimes size doesn't matter.