Frustration

[So not a Guru]

I have another string variable

n_tpln_mch

That appears to determine what toolplane mapping mode is active. I want to modify our post so that we can take advantage of the tilted planes (G68.2) functionality, which (I believe) means that I need to be able to use the above variable. It is used in the start of file & tool change sections, but it isn't defined or initialized anywhere in the non-encrypted post. And I can't determine what values it is referencing.

 

I guess its another instance of hidden info . Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that companies and individuals want to protect their intellectual property and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I guess I'm just frustrated in this case because I just want to learn how the system works & I keep hitting these road blocks.

 

I'l keep pluggin' along

[Guest]

I have another string variable

n_tpln_mch

That appears to determine what toolplane mapping mode is active. I want to modify our post so that we can take advantage of the tilted planes (G68.2) functionality, which (I believe) means that I need to be able to use the above variable. It is used in the start of file & tool change sections, but it isn't defined or initialized anywhere in the non-encrypted post. And I can't determine what values it is referencing.

 

I guess its another instance of hidden info . Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that companies and individuals want to protect their intellectual property and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I guess I'm just frustrated in this case because I just want to learn how the system works & I keep hitting these road blocks.

 

I'l keep pluggin' along

If it's a purchased post, I don't know why you don't send it back.....that's why you paid for a post

 

Yes, I do my own posts for the most part but if it is a purchased post, it goes back for edits for a multitude of reasons, including so the master is kept up to date, so the post writer can handle things as they have written them into a post, let them work.....

[So not a Guru]

If it's a purchased post, I don't know why you don't send it back.....that's why you paid for a post

Two reasons

#1 I want to learn this, my occasional frustrations not withstanding

 

 

#2 This post was really never "purchased". When the company bought the Onsrud router (before my time), Onsrud provided the post with the machine, not the MC reseller, Onsrud itself. About  year and a half ago, when I started here, I tried to get help changing a couple of things in the post from Onsrud's tech support, but they told me they couldn't help us. We are were basically on our own concerning this post.

 

 

I could probably convince the owner to purchase a good post from In House or Postability (we have bought a couple 5X posts from them already), but it will be a hard sell since they have been using this one for 4 years now, the owner doesn't understand how much hand editing goes into each and every program, nor does he know the advantages that the programmers and operators will have available to them with a new post. What he knows is that we'd be asking for a $4K post to replace one that is working right now and has been since they bought the machine.

 

 

I have made a lot of modifications that have eased hand editing & made everyone's job (well maybe not mine) much easier. At some point its possible that I might throw up my hands in frustration & instead concentrate on convincing Joey to buy a new post. But that is not a common direction for me to take, the fates have granted me some pretty nice gifts, I like to make use of them.

 

 

I do appreciate that many of you on this forum support the professional post builders, I do as well. But y'all repeatedly suggesting to me to "leave it to the pros", especially on a forum titled "Post Processor Development Forum", is not particularly helpful to my post processor development . I am however unendingly grateful for all of the help, suggestions (with that one exception) and links to resources that these forums provide.

 

This was probably TMI, I hope I have not offended anyone with this post, especially you JParis you are often a godsend when I'm having trouble.

[Greg Williams]

As far as I understand the generic 5ax fanuc post only supports G68 with top map mode. There is no out of the box solution for G68.2 Euler angles

[Colin Gilchrist]

While there is no OOTB functionality, the Architecture is there for you to add your own code to support the output of Tilted Work Planes.

 

Zeke,

 

I have some info that will be helpful to you. I'll just have to dig it out. I can probably get to that sometime in the middle of the week...

 

Try contacting Jeremy (jlw) as well. He may have easier access to the material than I do. I believe I gave him the same info a while back.

[So not a Guru]

While there is no OOTB functionality, the Architecture is there for you to add your own code to support the output of Tilted Work Planes.

 

Zeke,

 

I have some info that will be helpful to you. I'll just have to dig it out. I can probably get to that sometime in the middle of the week...

 

Try contacting Jeremy (jlw) as well. He may have easier access to the material than I do. I believe I gave him the same info a while back.

Thanks again Colin

[So not a Guru]

While there is no OOTB functionality, the Architecture is there for you to add your own code to support the output of Tilted Work Planes.

 

Zeke,

 

I have some info that will be helpful to you. I'll just have to dig it out. I can probably get to that sometime in the middle of the week...

 

Try contacting Jeremy (jlw) as well. He may have easier access to the material than I do. I believe I gave him the same info a while back.

Thanks, I contacted Jeremy

[jlw™]

I don't even know what he's talking about!

 

 

Just kidding! I can put you on the right path. Depending on what control you may have to tweak some parameters. Mazak for shizzy.

[Guest]

... I can put you on the right path. ...Mazak for shizzy.

 

 

You said "Mazak" and "right path" in the same sentence...

 

   

[jlw™]

LMB!!!

[Giang-TT]

I have the same question on the "n_tpln_mch" variable, so I tried to give it a new value = 1 right before the pg68 post block to see what happen and I got it works.

n_tpln_mch = 1  

if use_clamp,
        [
        p_lock = zero
        s_lock = zero
        pbld, n$, s_slock, e$
        pbld, n$, s_plock, e$
        ]
      if stagetool <= one, pbld, n$, *t$, "M6", e$, 
      
	  n_tpln_mch = 1  
      if n_tpln_mch > m_one, #Toolplane mapping mode
        [
        #Enter your mapping scheme here...
        pg68_map
        pbld, n$, "G43", *tlngno$, *zabs_s, e$
        pbld, n$, *sg00, pwcs, "X0.", "Y0.", *zabs_s, e$
        pcan1, pbld, n$, *sgcode, *xabs_s, *yabs_s, *p_out, *s_out, strcantext, e$
        ]
      else, #5 axis and regular mode ( n_tpln_mch = -2)
        [
        if cut_ra_head & use_g45, #Swap xout and yout based on offset axis
          [
          tloffno2 = tlngno$ + g45_of_add
          pcan1, pbld, n$, *sgcode, pwcs, *sgabsinc, *yout, *p_out, *s_out,
            *speed, *spindle, pgear, strcantext, e$
          pbld, n$, "G45", *tloffno2, *xout, e$
          ]
        else,
          [
          pcan1, pbld, n$, *sgcode, pwcs, *sgabsinc, *xout, *yout, *p_out, *s_out,
            *speed, *spindle, pgear, strcantext, e$
          ]
        ]
      if stagetool = one, pbld, n$, *next_tool$, e$

 

Feel like it's an "open" variable so we can link it to a misc value and use as a switch to activate the "titled work plane"

 

This is the result code:

(3" FACE MILL|TOOL - 1|DIA. OFF. - 1|LEN. - 1| DIA. - 2.5)
(SURFACE TOP)
T1 M6
G43 H1 Z4.9013
G0 G120 X0. Y0. Z4.9013
G0 X-9.964 Y-5.5 B90. A90.
G68 X0. Y0. Z0. I0. J0. K1. R-90.
G68 X0. Y0. Z0. I0. J1. K0. R-90.
X-5.5 Y-4.9013 Z9.964 M8
G90 Z8.164
G1 Z7.864 F20.
X5.5 F80.
Y-5.9047
X-5.5
Y-6.9082
X5.5
Y-7.9117
X-5.5
G0 Z9.864
M9
G0 G28 G91 Z0.
G0 G90 G120 A0. B0.
G0 G91 G28 Y0.
M30
%