On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:32 AM, Chris Kozell said:

Yup, talked to the Okuma AE that will be showing this at IMTS, there is a solution but its something that needs to be requested from Okuma to activate.

Holy sh**! Chris Kozell in the house?

Yes, already requested this from Okuma. I'll probably have to wait a couple of years though

4 hours ago, gcode said:

Or the programmer 

Me.... I'm supplied pre-confused

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, gcode said:

maybe a dumb idea..

could your program an X axis facing cut out is safe space on the lower turret

sync it to the Y axis parting tool and use the fake X axis facing cut to drive CSS at the spindle?

or if you can't sync it, maybe you could feed the Y in IPR federate and drive the spindle with the fake facing cut

You could be on to something Mr G...

That could either work, or confuse the h3ll out of the controller... LOL

17 minutes ago, Brad Lisle said:

new technology brings new problems. The only way I have seen was to break up the y axis movements and command a S speed at each line. You still will not get a true CSS but you can get it closer than a G97. I have heard some talk about this but not sure what will come yet.

The only Okuma with Y axis CSS is in Charlotte...  I was in touch with them before I tried the method myself. I'm not sure how they did it (I'm assuming a software "hack"), because using the G11 axis rotation still resulted in the physical X axis driving the speed.

6 hours ago, Orvie said:

 

I stood in front of the Starry Night in Moma in NYC. That painting gets me every time. I'm not sure why, but it must be the power of art.

Has anyone tried this method of parting off?

I've recently trialled it, and got very favourable results. Really nice parting blade with coolant being applied both over and under the insert. I ran a feedrate twice what I would normally run, and it cut well, with a better finish than normal.

The only drawback is our U3000 doesn't have constant surface speed on the Y axis, and no amount of cheating managed to get it to do so (I did try coordinate rotation but it was a no go)

5 hours ago, C^Millman said:

Not the way I would have approached that part. I look at the backplot and big red flags good off in my head. Sorry, but sometimes one toolpath is not always the answer to finish a part. Scallop would have been my first choice not Hybrid for one toolpath to try. I see all the issues with the toolpath just looking at the back plot. You have created dwell points all over using that toolpath approach. The other thing was no semi finish. I would have Semi finished leave .005 to .01 stock using a higher step over with one tool then come back with a finish tool and then finished, but again maybe used a couple toolpaths to finish this part and not one.

Finish the flat surfaces with a flat tool also. No reason to run the ball endmill over the flat surfaces.

Pencil for the walls with the .125R using a .25 Ball Endmill would have finished all of that very nicely. Could even use Surface Finish Contour if you wanted.

+1 for Semi finishing. I always have a semi finishing operation in hard or difficult materials. This typically gives a constant stock remaining for the finishing tool(s), so the tools are under a consistent load, which results in a more even finish.

7 hours ago, gcode said:

The Sandvik add-in requires a license

At one point I was told to contact my dealer and they would give me one

The Sandvik Add-in ran so slowly I never bothered

Machining Cloud is still free, or at least it was when I used it a couple of weeks ago

Yes, I knew the Sandvik add-in was $$, as is Coroplus standalone, but I was told last year that they were going to start charging for Machining Cloud in general. I cant recall where that came from. Maybe they realised that the usage would drop right now if they started charging

I need to look at Coroplus again, I used Adveon a lot, but I know the initial versions of Coroplus were chunky. Hopefully, they've improved things.

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 10:21 AM, gcode said:

It is free and works pretty well for some manufacturers, so so for others and not at all for a few.

It is dependent on the manufacturers  to build and maintain the tool libraries of models

So do an excellent job, others are terrible to completely non functional.

I have achieved good results with Mitsubishi tools

I heard a while back that they were going to start charging for it. Did that not eventuate?

8 hours ago, YoDoug® said:

Essentially DFO does the same thing as CALL OO88 but with some differences. As Greg said, CALL OO88 only updates the XYZ offset position so you still need to post the rotary moves. DFO is modal and dynamic. Once G605 is active any rotary move will automatically update the XYZ offset position. The one limitation is that you have to post rotary moves by themselves, no linear on the same line. The biggest advantage and need for developing the DFO was being able to use it in conjunction with slope machining. If you have a casting or other organic part that you need to align the coordinate system to using slope, you can also turn on DFO to maintain that alignment for other rotary positions. 

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation Doug. When was G605 made available?

G605 is DFO? We use CALL OO88 but then, they probably updated since then.

10 hours ago, gcode said:

I wonder what percentage of that 250K keep maintenance current

That would depend on the location, that's for sure.

7 hours ago, gcode said:

I didn't get enough seat time to form an opinion one way or another.

There seem to be extreme opinions on both sides of the equation.

Some love it, some hate it, there is not much of a middle ground

It all depends on how you're introduced to it. And it needs to be treated with a clean approach

4 hours ago, MrFish said:

Stop stirring Mike !!

I am doing this as a favor to another company who can't justify the expense of buying the post through our re-seller and it has also been a good learning curve for me. Have made a lot of post mods myself and they are pretty happy with how it is working so far.

Actually, if you re-read it, I'm not stirring. I don't particularly care, but because it said "In House" the post was obviously from Inhouse, and as such, they should be able to make the mod, or show you, and as is always suggested here, that contact should be through your reseller.

Still, take it how you see it....

Hah, well I'm loving my new digs

Obvious question on my part.... It is an In-House post. Why not ask your reseller, and get them to process the modification through In-House? I'm sure they could action that pretty promptly.

46 minutes ago, gcode said:

Unfortunately, this means you won't get any of the 2019 updates

Sometimes, if they find a serious issue, an update will be released retroactive back to the initial release, but not often.

Yes, unfortunately, that is the case. But, we can't justify paying what we pay, for the little that we get (in terms of things other than updates, if you know what I mean)

In all honesty, we wont be using 2019 anyway. Heck, I'm barely using 2018

We get 2019 as we just fit under the cutoff...

That will be the last version I will have anything to do with. An end of a 25 year run.

Or... have the following:

First Operation

M0 (Flip Part)

VZOFZ=VZOFZ-X (X Being the value you want to shift the zero set)

Second Operation

VZOFZ=VZOFZ+X (Shift Z Zero set back to original Zero set value)

M2

That is how I do it.

Probably a long shot, but would anyone have a CAD model (preferably STEP) of one of these machines?

LOL, new user with two posts, and both are in a resurrected thread 13 years old.

I just think that is funny

I gotta say Okuma. But I love'em . Okuma and T**S**** is a beautiful thing too LOL

Ask your reseller? They always say, you should ask your reseller for everything.....

4 hours ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

Getting back to your original question Mick, there is no existing logic in any "Generic" C-Axis Lathe Post from CNC Software that provides a "limit" on the C-Axis. The only options are:

1. Signed Continuous - Axis is allowed to "wind up". This setting supports both positive and negative output, greater than 360 degrees. So you could get C-1180., or C1080 for example.
2. Signed Direction, Absolute Angle - This gives you +- 360 degrees. (720 Degrees of "total travel"). The Positive/Negative output will also control the Rotation Direction.
3. Absolute - All rotary positions are Positive and output is limited from 0 - 360 degrees.

You would have to add your own logic to do the "limiting" of the C-Axis, and that could get really complicated, depending on exactly what you are attempting to achieve. When you say "C-Axis Path", are you cutting on the Face or the Cylinder?

Colin! Colin! Colin! I emailed you about this a while back, but you never replied... I was sad... so sad

Hah, anyway, it was milling on the face. It seems that it is a common problem encountered by a lot of people. Most people (including me), just use wireframe geometry, and break the arc into quadrants, which forces the C axis breaks.

On ‎24‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 3:35 AM, Jay Kramer @ Precision Programming said:

Hey Mick you could asked me to move next time I have  mode connections in my office.

PS Thanks Jimmy Wakeford helping out a TheeCircle member or is that really from one member to another.

 

I guess I could have Jay. The funny thing is, a thread like this takes days to move, and yet the whisper of any alternative CAM application, and the thread is whooshed in Off-Topic, faster than you can say burrito....