Color blind is a serious issue for me too. I stick to just a few colors for everything and always use those colors for every part I program.

I hope you all know that everyone who has posted in this topic (with the exception of me of course) while maybe not becoming members of the "circle" have been added to the emastercam cliche of idiots and whatever, whatever....

right above the line that I want the line number on I put: n$=t$ Then the next line, for what you want to do I'd make it look like this: pbld, *n$, "G91 G28 Z0", e$ pbld, "G80 G49 G40 G20 G17", e$ Although unless you use metric and in on your machines you probably dont need the G20. My saftey line is this: G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90

We make the smarter guys program the horizontals. The other guys program the verticals. If they can't handle the verticals they program the lathes. jk

Last I heard 6 yr olds were picking this up pretty fast.

AHA! Thanks Tim...that's why I come here. That did it. So obvious and yet...

I'm editing the new generic fanuc 4 axis post to use with one of my machines and here we like to see the G43 line look like this: G43H1D1Z2.T2M8 The T2 is the next tool. I have everything the way I want it except the dia. comp. I've put this *tloffno right after the *tlngno but for some reason it won't force that dia comp number out in the code. I've also removed the D# call that usually follows the G41 from the toolpath. Anyone?

see...james is in the circle...I knew it.

I bought my 1st HP calculator at a garage sale about 9 yrs ago. It was an HP11c in perfect condition and it came with the cover and book. They were asking $5 and I "took it off their hands" for $3. A friend of mine collects calculators (that's right Jeff...that's a nerd thing to do) and he gave me an HP48g for my birthday. When I left that shop I gave him the HP11c. I'm not near smart enough to figure out everything this calculator will do (or to collect calculators for that matter) but it's too hard to go back to working the regular ones!

in backplot click...kidding

Thanks Jaz...exactly the kind of info I'm after

True Psycho the spindle life is only one benefit but it's one with a good attention getter...a big out of pocket price tag and downtime! As far as increased feed rate our parts are small enough that the machine rarely ever gets to the full programmed rate anyway. And as far as management/ownership is concerned we are making our parts to tolerance (and they are fairly close tolerances here) just using balanced holders right now. We have some horizontals here now that we have to use balanced holders for that have 12k spindles on them so they're not unfamiliar with the need for balancing I'm just wanting to make sure that we're considering all things before the machines hit the floor. Thanks, for the input.

Hey Rick, let me get back to you on that. John is on vacation right now but I think it's something we need to talk about. Although it's not like any programmer should have any input to a machine acquisition or tooling!

Most of the work we do on these machines will be small (relatively) electronic work in aluminum. One of the guys here said one of the shops he's worked in in the past bought a heat shrink machine that worked well for about $5k. If the only advantage the heat shrink offers over balanced tool holders is improved rigidity it doesn't sound like a case I want to try to make. My main concern is the spindle life. If balanced holders will be enough to insure reasonable spindle life I'm good with that.

We are picking up a couple of new machines and they have 14000 rpm spindles. I know we need to balance the tools and my fear is that management/ownership thinks that just buying balanced tool holders will take care of this. My questions are these: Are balanced tool holders just as good as heat shink tool holders (or is the difference in cost easy to justify)? and if heat shrink is considerably better...what makes it better. I am trying to make a case for someone else to open the pockets fairly deep so I like to be correct about what I'm recommending.

Scott doesn't work here anymore! But I'll be there.

Good Rick. I'll see you on the 19th at the Tech Expo eh?

I just got it to work. I did just the opposite...in the past I had my chaining set at 3d and it always worked. I've since checked the plane mask on selections and that made the C-plane active and it wouldn't work anymore. I wonder why if all the geometry is at the same Z level it considers it 3d? hmmm. Thanks for the help John

I've always used the above toolpath to engrave my vise jaws. Now it doesn't work. I window the geometry and it prompts me to sketch approximate start point so I do. When I select a point in the geometry I get the prompt "Select Contour chain 1 and nothing else. This toolpath is nothing new to me. I've double checked the letters to make sure that they are actual geometry and not notes.

He knows somethin...

not me

Sounds like the "boss" needs a little educating. The only thing an operator should be able to change are feeds and/or speeds since these are going to vary depending on a number of conditions, fixturing, out of holder tools etc.. I used to work for a Fred Flintstone like that. Not usually too open to reality. Good luck.

The forum has a reputation? With who...Ah the people using Illegal software looking for another freebee I bet. Dang it!

I found that formula on this forum and interpolate all the holes I make like that. I love it. Adding points and circle milling and all that other monkey motion is just too much work.

Duh...Thanks.