Yes this could be a problem since you are new you don't understand the different switches the Post uses to control primary positive or negative output. There may need to be a prewind in the operation to allow whatever toolpath the Rotational travel it needs on one the primary axis of rotation. Normally on a table-table machine the primary is the one with limits and the secondary is the one with no limits, but that depends on the builder.

Like Byte suggested a Z2G would help us help you.

Welcome to the Emastercam Forum. Have a good day.

49 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

Great results with those cutting parameters Ron.  I dropped the SFM a little bit to eliminate some of the visual "noise", but otherwise it looks great.  

 

Thank you. 

Nothing like real world experience. Glad it was close enough to get you what you were looking for. Speed kills and in situations like this. We don't need speed we need a consistent controllable process to get the results we are after. If you are getting taper which I will suspect you are then a spring pass should work and not chatter.

You can get a demo of it and try it out.

I know a guy who use to work for CNC Software that can give you some help.

Cough Cough Aaron Eberhard Cough Cough.

3 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

In regards to using a stub flute.  Any tricks to eliminating the steps on the walls?

Nope nature of the beast.

No joy that old of a workspace and for different levels not good. I have gotten into the habit of just recreating my workspace files for each version. Trying to have them carry the way I have mine with no ribbons it hit or miss.

20 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

It's finishing a long steep wall, with some 3mm radii.  I do have a stub flute tool (1.5 reach, .234 flute length) , however, I have never had much luck getting a good finish without showing the stepdowns.  Though, I am not against the idea.  

 

Edit - Oh, and I am leaving .005 on the walls.  

Might try leaving .0015 and I would run it at .0004 to .0006 per tooth at 2000 rpms and see what kind of finish I get and then adjust from there.

Well hopefully they have more information to help you solve it without that extra information hard to do any more to help.

I agree none of it is working correctly, but I still thank I would be testing equal to conditions before I was testing greater than or less than. i would think about limiting the decimal values before anything just to rule that out. On a HAAS control i would have no idea where to start.

38 minutes ago, ThickChips said:

Precisely - it CANT BE - so why is GOTO 1000 being executed? 

And again - CORRECT. Therefore, WHY is GT returning TRUE (going to 1000)?
 

That I cannot answer that is a question you will have to ask the machine builder. However why are you even trying to make that possible? What problem are you trying to solve by doing what you are doing? You have not once explained what you're trying to accomplish you just keep throwing out equations that make no logical sense and then want us to explain why they do or they don't make sense when they don't make sense to begin with. That is why JParis and myself are confused since what is the end game here? What are you trying to accomplish with this macro? Should it do what it is doing no it should not. That aside I never keep beating a dead horse I know something is not going to work then I acknowledge it will not work and move on. You have run how many tests and spent how much time proving it doesn't work. Okay what is the process and method you are trying to accomplish? What they end goal in mind then maybe someone can offer an alternative way to get there? You have proven it doesn't work, but then you keep asking your question in a way to have someone help you understand a process that should even be used to begin with. If you are trying to error proof something then you have to do something different.

You should have a if #601 = #602 goto 1000 then after that use your less than or greater than logic. Having the greater than or less than logic first when you are testing for an equal to process is the wrong way to develop your macro. Test the first condition which is are they equal to each other. If they are and that is not the desired result then produce your error or complete your loop. If they are not equal to each other then you start the process of are they greater than or less than to each other. If there is math else where that is subtracting or adding to #601 and/or #602 to make it smaller or larger then you keep doing the equal to check until they are equal to finish that part of the macro. The way I see the math and variables you are creating a infinite loop that it cannot solve. If may prove right or wrong like suggested because at 20 places past the decimal they are greater than or less than each other, but because you cannot see that far out you are assume they are what they are not. The machine control is not that smart. If needs more help to know what your end results needs to be. This really goes for any computer program. What are the inputs and desired output. With that then we solve the process to do the error checks we need.

6 minutes ago, ikertx0 said:

I don't see any attachments or images.

Yes there is no attachments they are topics with the code embedded in them. Shoot me and email and I can work out how to help get what I have done integrated into your post.

9 minutes ago, ThickChips said:

I've taken nothing personal. I'm merely pointing out what is true and what is not true. Someone may not like the way code is written, it doesn't change the fact that it is logically valid under the rules of the language.

Respectfully, there is a lot of fallacies within your comment....

 

 

No infinite loop is possible under these tests. IF GT is true, then it goes to 1000. If GT is false, it continues execution. I would like to see a code example that demonstrates an infinite loop.

 

Next, you say this,

 

This is false! I provided the tests, did you review them? 

Test 1 checks:  IS .25 > .25? Result is NO - PASS

Test 2 checks: IS .9 > .9? Result is YES - FAIL <-------------- NOT TRUE

 

 

 

 

 

You are really tying to pass that math off as legit? How in the world can .25 be greater (<) than or even less than (>) .25? It is equal (=) to itself every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I have a quarter it is equal to a quarter. Now the quarter is greater than a dime, nickle and penny, but less than a half dollar, dollar and such. It can never be greater than or less than itself and you keep trying to say it is.

Now if you want me to check out of this conversation I am glad too no sweat off  my back, but I did review every equation and you and not explaining yourself correctly when is come to understanding the correct use of greater than or less than for the process you are using. 

1 hour ago, ikertx0 said:

Ron!
I would like to see all that, and also know the price, it could be interesting

I just bumped some old topics back to the surface take a look and let me know if you have any questions.

View sheets are a tricky pain in the butt when it comes to names and not getting them to get wonky on you. Still wish we have a veiwsheets manager.

4 hours ago, JB7280 said:

Do you guys use HSM Advisor for finishing?  How do you usually tweak the sliders to get a good baseline for finishing?  Mine always seems to be way off if I'm using the "tips" they give you when hovering the mouse.  

 

For instance, I have a 3/16 endmill, 1.375" flute length, in 6061, and it's suggesting max RPM.  I'd bet my 401k that that's gonna chatter like a banshee.  

To many parameters for it to take into account to say what is the best speeds and feeds for finishing. I agree the max rpms for that tool with that LOC not a good direction. How much material are you leaving to finish with? Does it have to be 7.3X to D? Can you use a stub flute extended reach endmill?

Bump to share some custom drill cycle stuff shared over the years

dump to cover some custom drill cycles stuff shared over the years

Bump to cover Custom Drill Cycle stuff

Bump to share some probing logic over the years

Bump to cover some Probing Logic shared over the years.

1 hour ago, ThickChips said:

@JParis

Sorry, perhaps you could explain what part of the statement is illogical...

If you think that ".900000 > .900000 = TRUE" is logical, then you're being... illogical. 

GT operators were included in the language for a reason.

 

That is not what he is saying. He is saying your logic in the equation is looking at the math and making a determination of what is greater or less than for numbers that by your math process are being made equal with the variables values you are using. You are comparing the same #601 and #602 math with the same inputs. This will create an infinite loop that will never close. If .9 is less than .9 then goto 1000 if .9 is greater than .9 then go to 1000. Replace the .9 with the .25 it is still resulting in the same result even thought you are using #510-#513 for values the issue is the end results for each equation is the same value. 

In every example your process is using values that will equal themselves, but you are using a greater or less than equation when it should be a equal too equation since you are comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Like suggested step away and don't take the help as a personal insult it is not meant that way.

Here is one to play around with if you really want to explore what you can do with 3D tools.

C6-4-SL40 113 150-AX.zip

19 minutes ago, amw said:

Yes it is. And lathes are so much simpler then mills? Doesnt make any sense. For a small amount of effort they could really improve a few things. 

The lathe tool library is a mess. Take some time and carefully setup your own library and it will work better. Im slowly getting mine setup

Do everything a 3D lathe tools. Remember drills are not supported yet and if you want to bore with them then have to either define the tool twice which you can do in standard lathe, but not in MT or bore using a point toolpath taking the difference from the center to the edge that will be boring.

No that is where you need to define them separately. This was covered on the Official Forum in the last couple of months on the bets way to do it. I normally build everything like I need it and then work from there.

1 minute ago, Tinger said:

Is the blade or the block considered the "Holder" - when defining components

Yes the blade and block are holders.

No in the 3D tools you should be able to pick as many solids as needed. I have had 10 different solids to build one tool holder before.

I think the process is laid out odd like JParis mentioned. What does the complete macro look like?