Mike, Yes providing you know the 'formula' or ratio of what is acceptable. But if you don't, the info is worthless???

Joe, I fully understand that 7 thou is virtually no movement. But the OP said that 60 thou is ok. All I'm trying to get is how was this figure arrived at, and if 60 thou is ok, then is 50thou ok or no good? ie there must be limits from a calculation somewhere. 60 thou can't just be a figure plucked from the sky, that's all I'm questioning.

Not disputing this at all, but it would be nice to know why .06" is ok. Is it a ratio of the metric balls/leadscrew pitch (60 thou being 1.5mm)? And would 50thou be ok, or is that a no no? Please can you ask him how he has arrived at this figure. Again to stress, this isn't to dispute it's to understand. I don't want expensive machine repairs, and I LOVE the peel mill cycle. Thanks, Terry

and to specify how much stroke would be required would be very difficult as a 'broad statement'. You would need to know the pitch of the ballscrew and the diameter of the balls I would have thought? Has no-one else had this problem, because there a few threads here encouraging the use of peel mill? Also, trochoidal milling has been pretty well known for 10+ years, which is similar in principle. patool: is your servo gain definately not a problem???

Ok, throwing a curve ball... Is this really down to small moves or a combination of small moves but with the servo tuning being out? If the tuning is out, this could easily set up a resonant frequency which could do this? Vibration is a very powerfull thing. Just a thought?

quote: There IS a parameter to make the High Speed on all the time. I always reccommend NOT turning this on because of the possibility of unintended/possibly catastrophic consequences. James, +1. Also, just for reference, there is a parameter that automatically suspends look ahead mode when in rigid tapping. Parameter 5203 (fanuc 0i).

quote: The easiest way would be to hard code it into the start of file (psof) and the Tool change (ptlchg), to be on all the time. Then in the drilling section you can put in the code to turn it off. As much as I dislike hard coding things into the post, I think this one would be OK. Another alternative would be to put something at the Tool change section that checks for drill and either turns if on or off. Something like.... if opcode = 3 # opcode 3 is for drilling [ pbld, n$, "enter off code here", e$ ] else, pbld, n$, "G05 P1000 R10", e$ This should be close (it's late, I'm tired) Mike Mattera Mike, We have hard coded G05.1Q1 at the start of all milling tools and G05.1Q0 at the end. We don't call it for any drilling/tapping ops and it works really well. As James says, if you're machine has it as an option, use it. It reduces cycle time for us on average 6mins an hour.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The machine doesn't happen to be a Doosan Puma by any chance does it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep. The funny thing is our other doosan machines do not have this problem. Mike Mike, Take a copy of the good machine and the bad machine parameters and run them through file compare? 1401 to 1790 are feed rate control parameters. Then get the yellow books out... HTH

if workofs$ = > 5 & workofs$ < 54, pwcs_error As you can see, I had the format wrong by adding the = to the statement. Funny thing was when testing I looked and looked and didn't see it... Anyway, yes it works like a charm. So BIG thanks Guru and Colin G [boeing] for initially pointing me in the right direction. HTH someone else. Cheers, Terry

I did some testing over the weekend and this doesn't work. With the post changed as per guru's suggestion, -1 to 5 input = 54 to 59 output (correct). 6 to 53 input = error output (correct). 54 to 59 input = error output (incorrect). 60 and above input = error output (correct). So I can only assume that the format of the line if workofs$ = > 5 & workofs$ < 54, pwcs_error is not correct? If I # out the line, then 54 to 59 input = 54 to 59 output. But the error message doesn't then show for the incorrect input values. Anyone got any thoughts? Thanks, Terry

Thanks Guru, I'll edit the post and report back. Cheers, Terry

Hi All, This query has grown from an earlier post ref G54 output. Big thanks to ColinG@Boeing for pointing me in the right direction, but I'm not quite there. What I want is to be able to enter 54/55/56/57/58/59 accordingly into the work offset box, and have it output G54/G55/G56 etc. I have left the existing part of the post to allow -1 and 0 for G54, 1 for G55 etc so this will allow us to either work as we always have, and have the option of working this new way. Below is the PWCS section (fanuc4axis): pwcs #G54+ coordinate setting at toolchange if mi1$ > one, [ sav_frc_wcs = force_wcs if sub_level$, force_wcs = zero if sav_mi9 = 1, workofs$ = sav_workofs if workofs$ <> prv_workofs$ | (force_wcs & toolchng), [ if workofs$ < 6, [ g_wcs = workofs$ + 54 *g_wcs ] else, [ if workofs$ = 6 to 53, pwcs_error<<<<<<[HOW DO I WRITE THIS CORRECTLY?] if workofs$ = 54, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ = 55, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ = 56, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ = 57, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ = 58, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ = 59, g_wcs = workofs$, *g_wcs if workofs$ >= 60, pwcs_error ] ] force_wcs = sav_frc_wcs !workofs$ ] pwcs_error # Sends an error message to the screen if the programmer enters 6>53 & 60> in the work offsets parameter in the Planes dialog box. [ result = mprint(spwcserror) e$ "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" ,e$ " ERROR - SET WORK OFFSET CORRECTLY AND RE-POST ", e$ "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$", e$ exitpost$ ] What it currently does is work correctly for -1 to 5 (outputting G54 to G59), and then posts Error when entering 6 and above. I know the format is incorrect for one of the lines highlighted, and if I # it out, it works as it should when entering 54/55/56 etc. However, it doesn't output an error message when entering 6 to 53. 60 and above outputs an error, so I assume it's the format for the one highlighted line that is incorrect? Appologies for the long post, but hopefully this will help someone if they want to be able to work the same way (providing I can get this working!) Many thanks in advance for any pointers. Cheers, Terry

Well it looks like a point in the right direction http://mastercamx.blogspot.com/ I assume it's to help s/w development opposed to going into the sub-con market...

quote: ... and in 3 days of training (One TL Lathe Operator 1 day class and one 2-day Haas Turning center programming class) and you can pretty much cover the basics of "Real World" machining on a TL Lathe. Is this how long the training really is for this machine? I thought quick code was as it says - quick? The prototrak was a morning for the lathe and an afternoon for the mill? Our Siemens cnc lathe was a day and a half total (it's like mazatrol). If haas is that long (3 days) for the basics, I would definately get mastercam lathe because it will be way quicker than programming at the machine IMHO.

Thanks Eric. All done.

Thanks Colin. Eric, how do I send a request in? Cheers

Eric / Rickster I've been an autocad jocky since the launch of r11 (17 years???), and I guess I've gotten use to doing things this way. The way I use the software/type of work I do (nearly exclusively 2d) needs either 2x lines trimmed to sharp corner, or to a specific rad size. In my mind (?) 1x command is easier to select with either a 0 or the required fillet size entered. For trimming, in mcam I exclusively use the trim divide. It's a real pity that this cannot be added to the right click mouse menu.

I would like to see the fillet command be able to take a 0 value. At the moment it can take .00005 as the least increment. This way, fillet could also be used for trimming (working the same as autocad does). Sorry for the hijack.

There was a big debate on practical machinist about these sites. General concensus was they're a waste of time and money.

When I was 'playing', I did a couple of 6mm wide slots by 8mm deep really close together (in ally). There was only .5mm (20thou) of material in between. This was just to see if the strategy would be any good making heatsinks (fins). The sidewall finish was better than 16cla and the walls were straight and parallel. Because the toolpath is light loads (small radial cut), I assume it's low forces so would be OK for graphite (or anything that may be brittle)???

Used the peelmill a few times since my first post. We bought a new vice for the prototrak, and decided to cut off the cast rear mounting lug. 50mm thick cast iron, full doc with a 12mm solid carbide making a 13mm wide slot. It went through like butter! mmm, looks like we'll be trying dynamic mill toolpath next. Cheers

At work with x4 now... Just looked and the only option is Mill Tool Library. It doesn't give you Mill ToolHolder Library a an option? Does this mean you can't make the Holders stick? Thanks, Terry

Jim, Thanks for the reply. I'm at home now, and have just fired up x3demo and sure you're spot on. But I really couldn't see it at work earlier in x4. It was a long day! Thanks, Terry

Hi all, I just finished customising a toolholder library specific to our machines. How do I get it to default load? Whatever toolpath I select, I have to click 'open library' and select the one I have just modified. None are selected as default. I looked in the configuration but can't see anything??? Cheers

Just finally gotten around to trying the peel mill in anger today. St Stl 316 producing a slot 3.5mm wide x 3.5mm deep on a prototrak R8 knee mill. Length of slot 550mm. 3mm cutter 3.5mm doc 0.125 stepover Feed 200mm/min Speed 3000 rpm Coolant Tool looked new after and no burrs with mirror finish. Hats off cnc. This toolpath is gunna get used a lot from now on.