Yes sir me also for the most part unless I am doing some crazy millman stuff then I revert back to surfaces or even wireframe to drive a toolpath exactly like I want.

Since you felt it necessary to call me out by name, let's hear yours. All I've ever done over the years is try to learn, first and foremost, from the people on this forum, and then have attempted to give back that knowledge to others who were seeking help. A great bit of my knowledge has come from reading about something in a manual, or on this forum, and then "trying something" until I figured it out on my own and got it to work. Guess what > there is a bunch of information in the Fanuc Manuals, which specifically mention Right-Angle Head Applications. You're completely right when you say that it is much easier (and possible) to do directly on the 840D control. This is possible on the 840D, in a way that is not possible on a Fanuc. However, I've helped a great many people do positional and "full 5-Axis" RAH work, and have used the Generic Fanuc 5X Mill Post to output RAH 5-Axis Code for a Fanuc. So I've personally gotten this to work with some limited applications, and I'm trying to help some other people make the same kind of discoveries on their own. When I see entire chapters in a manual, mentioning an application for Right-Angle Heads, I think to myself "they've obviously done this enough times to put chapters in the manual about it"; so it can't be that uncommon. I have only seen the handful of RAH ops that I've done in-person myself. I extrapolated that "100 times" number because for there to be a manual section written about RAH attachments, and how to handle the offsets, I think "this can't be a unique application if they have written a section in the manual about it". Contrary to what you may think, I've run several DMG Mori machines, with 840D Controls. Tool Types 130 & 131 are nice functions. It is much easier to program an Angled Head Tool on an 840D than it is to do so on a Fanuc. You won that argument. Congratulations; I'm sure your arm will be sore over the next couple of days as you pat yourself on the back. Everyone copies everyone else in life and in art. Art imitates life, life imitates art, and we are all just pawns in a very large game where we barely even started to understand the rules. The 840D is very complex. You get a truckload of "capability" in a package where you have to buy all that capability upfront. This means that the 840D will always have a fixed price which is higher than a Fanuc "Bare bones" 5-Axis Control. It is a different approach between the Germans and the Japanese. Fanuc has built an advanced "Lego Set", where you can plug in different modules, to customize your machine. This, in turn, changes the parameter sets and NC Code which is required to run a given machine. So, you've got to "know the system", and how these changes will affect the NC Code output which is needed to harness the power of the control. Both the sales and the technical staff at each machine tool builder are then responsible for putting together "the right package", so you get the correct functions available on the control. Fanuc does offer "standard packages" (MTB's also build their own), so the customer can purchase a fully configured machine with all the bells and whistles, if they choose. Or they can buy functions on an "ad hoc" basis, if they want to start with a lower level of complexity, and add additional capabilities later on. The Siemens 840D Language is very complex. Sure, it is powerful for a guy who really knows it, as you clearly do. But how easy is it to run the control, and use all the functions? How much training is required to learn all the functionality which is possible to use? For complex stuff, like a Right-Angle Head, the 840D makes that very easy indeed. But if your shop does not require all of that complexity and power, you've just paid for a control which "can control like 30 channels, and do 5-axis, probing, swap axis addresses, and use a FFT to draw a picture of a bavarian sausage in your mouth (they are tasty, I'll give you that)", on each channel, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone who can run it to make parts, let alone use all the complexity. But let's be real: in this day and age you need a CAM System, to program a part of even moderate complexity, because your machine isn't making money while the spindle is not cutting metal. So yes, sure it is possible to hand-program a complex part on the machine, using an 840D, in a way that isn't possible on a Fanuc. I'm sure you could go and program a large weldment, or mold base, on the control, without the need of a CAM System. Single-part lathe programming with 'part hand-off', can be much easier on an 840D. I've also done my fair share of programming on a control using templates, such as those in Manual Guide i, and IPS/VPS on Haas machines. But try doing that with an Impeller. For most parts: it is far better to program offline with a CAM system, and run the machine using NC Code. For offline programming, you don't want to be making edits on the controller (machine), unless you then go back into the CAM System, and edit the source file to output that matching (edited) NC Code. Otherwise you've lost traceability, unless you manage the "edited NC File", and save/backup those programs, which again, breaks the traceability back to the original NC File. So my preference is to always "fix the Post, and create 'the necessary input' in the CAM System, to get 'perfect NC Code' out the other end, which is traceable back to the CAM File". We talk about Fanuc and Haas and Matsuura, because that's what our customers are using, and we're helping them succeed even without "the greatest control in the history of the world, that everyone has copied, because it is clearly so superior". I can tell you this > those Fanuc machines and controls are running day-in, day-out, without ever skipping a beat. I like the Siemens 840D Control. I like the Heidenhain 530 & 640 Control. I like the Fanuc 31i-B5 Control (and other Fanuc Control variants). I love the Haas Control (especially the NGC) because, guess what, it's what I learned to program on with 3-Axis code, back when I had only ever programmed a 2D Profile using a Prototrak mill, and I knew basically nothing about CNC Machining. It is also easy to teach, learn, setup, run, and make parts with. I started learning with Mastercam 6.13, cutting pockets and contours. I graduated to 3D machining using 'Flowline' on single surfaces at a time. (Because that's what we had.) I would program using an Etch-A-Sketch, if there was value to be had in doing it that way. There are a great many systems in the world that are superior to other systems in some metrics. I'm a firm believer in "anything can be measured, but not all measurements provide insight or value". Power and capability are good metrics. So are training, service, support, and availability of potential candidates in the local labor pool. I hope you feel superior to me, if that in any way helps you to feel better about yourself. I wish you peace, happiness, prosperity, and a Very Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year! All my love, Your wishful thinking flat-earther monkey, Colin P.S., If I had one wish for this new year, it would be this: for you to be kind to the people you love and work with.

840D is the most advanced and powerful controller out there. All the others controllers on the market are just copy cats. From like mid90’s from my first machine show, I see how everyone are copycating whatever the germans bring. ..and James...I don’t bash funuc or hate...I actually like it a lot for its simplicity and ease of some functions, and more then that, I confess I’ve been a flatearther myself. Btw, I’ve seen machine shops on 3 continents. Did you ever seen a machine shop other than a ‘merican one? The problem I have is with some of yours and other users statements on here... When you said that “everyone should align to funuc standards” ..and something like that...That's "flat earther" attitude. A lots of you guys are actually very smart monkeys (I refer to every human with this term, so don’t get offended). You can see that from your post in here that your mind goes places.. but same time, some of you have a lot of ego and you are very tribal monkeys. I thought at start that you guys just trolling with those statements but now I believe that there are things that some of you guys don’t actually know, and that combined with your ego, wishful thinking and the need of being right, gets to your flatearthers type posts in here. BTW..from wikipidia: “FANUC System 7 was a joint venture between FANUC and Siemens because FANUC were then unable to produce a 5 axis controller.” …so who’s aligned with who? Saying that funuc is better than Sinumerik is like saying that mastercam 5x is better than moduleworks … and we all know the answer to that. Now..does any of you noticed that on all controllers out there, 5x simultaneous and 3+2 are the same? Traori/g43.4(5)/M128 or Cycle800/G68.2/PlaneSpatial , all there are behaving same way, just the codes are different. So, how come all these controllers developers came somehow using same ways of defining a tilted work plane using Euler angles, Roll/Pitch/Yaw/3points/2vectors etc..did same muse strike them somehow on same time? How come almost all CAM software use same 5x toolpath type (moduleworks ones}? Did same muse strike them somehow on same time? So I’m asking again the question: who’s aligned with who? You think that calling funuc enthusiasts “flat earthers” is to much?.. let me go more into that with some examples. On this forum, 2 funuc boys bashing sinumerik, with statements like: “fanuc macroB puts sinumerik to shame, because the bavarians didn’t crack this one yet”. When I read this, I laugh for days. I wanted to answer but I let it go, as I usually do. Now..to these guys…and you know who you are…let me rub a big bavarian sausage all over your faces(I’m not german btw…I’m canadian)…you guys are living under a big rock. MacroB compared to the programing language you have in sinumerik is like playing Mario vs Crysis(they are both fun btw). Defining custom variables of type real, integer, booleans, strings, arrays, and frames (work offsets), are just a dream for funuc..I won’t go into details cuz I’ll need to write for days only on this. Now..let me rub another one so you would know that “flatearther” is not 2 much. Colin Gilhist..sorry mate if I butcher ur name..another very smart monkey(for real), but on same time a very wishful thinking just so the discussion will not end with a loss of an argument. You said regarding the use on fanuc of attachments (angle heads) that you are sure fanuc done it probably over 100 time over the years..well..wishful thinking. Let me tell you how it’s done on 840 and then you judge about that 100 number. On 840 one can define different type of tools, endmills, drills and in our case angle heads. On a angle heads tool data you can shift from your spindle face to your tool tip on XYZ direction. So if let’s say your tool is pointing on X+dir, you shift on Z and X dir( and Y if needed) and activate that tool offset using D1(or D2…etc) More than that, on newer 840’s you can define the direction vector of your tool(dx dy dx) in tool data. On older ones you would need to manually program that tool rotation. When you want for example to position your angle heard in a tilted plane, you as a programmer, you just program the plane in which you want your tool to work using Cycle800. No special post or something. Just program it like a regular tool. The control will sum the tool vector defined in tool data and align your attachment in that plane(of course if a valid solution is founded based of your kinematic), all this regardless of your machine kinematic. Now…let me correct that number you were wishful thinking. The actual number of times fanuc did this over the years is: 0, ZERO, NULL, NADA! Why? It lacks all these options I pointed above. You can do it in fanuc of course, I did it, and others of course, but with use mathematics gymnastics and post changes. Nothing so streamlined like I pointed above. Probing Cycles. Another one I can go for days. Fanuc has no native probing cycles like 840, and the ones that comes from a 3rd party developers are again just copycats. The sheer amount of options from the 840 probing cycles puts probing in fanuc to shame that you guys don’t even imagine, like updating a wo in a tilted plane, updating kinematics, logging results under what name of file I want, even increment names and even what location I want(I can save results even on my freeking desktop). In fanuc even getting the actual date means you need to do some mind gymnastics. On 840 you just ask for date hour etc…The control of behavior during probing, like displaying results on screen or requirement of pressing the start button to continue or not, multiple probe data or probing just using one edge of stylus with spindle orienting….good luck doing that in fanuc in a tilted plane with your stylus not perfectly aligned with Z axis (totally possible in 840) Remember…all that regardless of your machine kinematic….some of you will get it. On fanuc? If the machine builder did not install those 3rd party probing cycles, then you will need to pay (you will pay regardless in the machine price anyways) Handling machine kinematics…well this is not even fair for fanuc. Let me scratch the surface on this one with an example. We have here machine with a table 2.5m on x and 1m on Y, Z travel 0.9m. Head swivel around Y B±100deg. On the table there is C axis. We attached at the end of the table another 2 rotaries.. A1 on left and A2 on right. So there are total of 4rot axis. We can bridge the A1A2 or use them separately, we can use any combination possible between all these rot with a press of a button. Changes in our programming or post = zero. Can you do that in fanuc…well… NO! WSEC= another copycat function. This in sinumerik has no name from what I know..but this is just an ability and it’s been there for 30y. On funuc is like the next great thing…and you pay extra..why?..I’m wondering why? A frame(work offset) on 840, beside the transitional components have also for every axis a fine translation, mirror, scale and a rotational component. Well let me rub that sausage again on your faces with an example. I can probe 3 points on a surface, using the native (not copycat cycles) probing cycles, they will find and update my frame rotational components, without any mathematical gymnastics, so that all my programming will follow that rotations. In a nutshell, if let’s say your fixture is not perpendicular to your Z axis, the probing cycles will find and populate your frame with the necessary rotations so that your program will align with your actual fixture posture. No mathematical gymnastics. And all can be done at the controller by operator. Dual channels…no need to expand on that. No competition here. I have no fingers on my hands and feet as of how many channels an apparatus can be built with 840. I believe 30 channels …I honestly don’t see an application one will do with that number of channels, but if someone will launch on such endeavor, imagine that you can have some apparatus in which on all those 30 channels you can do all this things above, on all 30 you individually probe, do 5x 3+2, etc, all govern by global variables..etc..Ludacris. Programming such a thing is just sifi. Actually programming 840d other than a single channel is not a easy task, that’s why CAM mill-turn applications outhere. Tring to handle a larger than life system like sinumerik with 2 channels even today is not an easy task, since all these functions from 840are not possible to access from a CAM system. It’s like trying to program a programming language using a CAM interface. All what these mill-turn CAM applications like moduleworks (Mill-turn module in Mastercam) are doing, is a just using stiff template hardcoded with a post, but in fact there are so many ways that this can be done with the programming language available in 840. Again, you are trying to program a programming language using a CAM system. Some of you didn’t not have probably the chance to work on a Sinumerik machine I’m fortunately in that regard. For sure that guy who said MacroB wasn’t cracked in bavaria didn’t, that’s why I understand some of yours tribalism towards fanuc. That makes me smarter than you? Not at all. Life shouldn’t be of outsmarting others, but to gain more knowledge for better ourselves…like is depicted in star trek..not the new ones..STD sucks sooo much!!! For a simple on channel 5x application and depending on what you want to do with that machine, a fanuc will do more than fine. I’m yet to see a machine other than an european manufacturer with 840, who is configured correctly, Not many builders have qualified personals to handle an application like sinumerik (at least not in north america), but saying stuff like fanuc is the best and so on, is just ludacris. Stop with urban legends and posting stupid sh..t just for the sake of an argument. PEACE! \m/

We have both here. Put me down for another 310i please. Commonality Reliability Userbase U.S. support. On a separate note, I wish you worked here because not only do you seem knowledgeable, but then a lot of my co-workers would realize how good they have it working with me . Mike

LMAO...I was looking for this...lets begin. I won't post 2 much 'cuz I'm busy...so: Funuc enthusiasts are a bunch of cultists. I call them "flat earthers". They all live on forums like this, posting some urban stories about some puny machines they program and how great they are 'cuz they can write and "IF" in an ancient and outdated language. After they do a post like this, they all gets very enthusiastic and start blowing themselves with revered comments. ...Exactly like on flat earth forums...

There's a reason. He KNOWS that control is a steaming pile of bovine excrement. FANUC Rules, Siemens Drools.