M131 is a PLC macro so it should have no bearing. You should be able to do this: G43H...Z...M8M131M130

M5 right before the move may not work but this will: G91G28Z0.M5 or G91G28Z0. M5 Be careful about removing or not using the H after G43... it depends on how the machine parameters are set and where the offsets are being read from. If not set right, you can crash it like you would on a FANUC with no H. Check to be sure the machine is set OK to run without an H. quote: I know my Fusion and Matrix controls don't like having two coolant calls on the same line. Why not? I do it all the time... even 3 of them...

I'd have to check but I think on a 31i its parameter 1604.0 ... This forces default mode of G5.1 which is probably whats blowing by your macros. Someone has a book they can check this one... or even check the state of the machines that work to the ones that don't. I'm not in front of one right now. Like James mentioned, some controls have a G or M code to shut it off but even that might not work because of the parameter state. I just had to switch this on a few new machines which is why the number is sticking in my head I think.... Either that or put in a boat load of dwells.. EOBs don't work on fast controls. Funny though... you say "G08" gives you an invalid code alarm? Maybe it wasn't placed correctly?

That depends on which variaxis model you have. The columns aren't the same size depending on the model. Your biggest concern would be the side clearance when the table is at -90° (or more). Is this machine new? or buying used? If new, I'd get your salesguy to hand over the Optimizer CD for the machine or a PDF of the Operating Manual (if not a copy of the manual itself) so that you can get yourself set up properly. The diagrams are very clear on where the collision areas are... Hell, even the sales catalog for the variaxis line shows all of the interference areas for each model in the back of the book...

A balanced assembly is the critical point and not just a balanced holder... I've seen plenty of unbalanced heat shrink set ups in my time. A pre-balanced holder (shrinker or not) simplifies the process. Rigidity of a shrinker is debateable but spindle life is only one benefit. Other positive effects of a balanced assembly are improved surface finishes, higher feed rates, improved tool life, improved feature accuracy, improved repeatability, etc. Shrinkers have their place and I use a ton of them but there are plenty of other holder types out there that kick a$$ all the same. 40 tapers and under are more forgiving at 14k rpm. 50 taper and up may have some shorter effects of an unbalanced assembly. At least your management is considering balanced holders... many don't even bother with that.

The format for extended offsets (Mazak, FANUC, etc) is: G10 L20 P?? ... the "P" literally being P1, P2, etc. In your case: G10L20P30....

I'll second that to Ron's experience as well.... I personally have no second thoughts about buying into a full 4th from many makes today.

quote: and if your doing production work that only needs indexing not full 4th you have wasted money that could have been better spent Sure about that Jimmy? I'd have to disagree here. A full 4th at the time of the machine purchase is dirt cheap compared to wishing you had one later... never mind having a machine fitted in the field. I just changed out a Mazak FH6800 and a FH8800 to full 4th (you remember them) just "because". And its already paid for itself in the last few months with new work and transferability. I also had 8800 #3 upgraded to a 240 tool hive as well. It was a joke buying those things the way they did. But back to the subject.... For many makes, the cost of the full 4th is chump change as an option when considering the overall price of the machine. Even the monthly pay schedule for your loan doesn't change that drastically. I would say, considering resale values and most importantly... CAPABILITY .... it's a wise decision even if you don't have a current need for it. You never know when you might quote a job next week and you need it (as mentioned above). On big machines, it's a big plus for B axis alignments and dynamic compensations. But I'd most certainly opt for it regardless of the machine size. Back in the old days, you had to consider the strength of a coupling over a drive system. But this has been improved greatly over the years.

Trepan???? Would be a tad wide cutter but.... or hand finish the lay pattern..

quote: but you cannot view Mazatrol files in CIMCO Edit Sort of... If you TAPE I/O the programs you can read the Mazatrol on any editor. If you understand 3-digit programming you can edit and even create Mazatrol programs. If you want to view the Mazatrol like its at the control, then you need something like Mazacam, Griffo Bros, etc. And yes, we use DNC systems to transfer Mazatrol programs.... but do you need to DNC a Mazatrol file??!! That must be some huge file!!!! (even for EIA considering you can option for 8megs up front and you have a 20 gig drive at the machine..if its a Nexus Matrix..)

MPMaster (which I used to modify for all our Mazak mills) is very close. Couple of tweeks here and there will get you running no sweat. A couple things off the top of my head... Tapping: If you're going to use G84.2 for rigid, need to modify output in post. Also, you don't need a M code for rigid tap if you use G84.2 or a G94/G95 output. Decimal output: If you're on a Matrix control, you can read outputs to the 5th place. I think you can switch this in the post. Haven't tried it yet ... no Matrix machines (yet... ) Coolant: HP coolant, air blast, etc may need to be modified for your correct codes. ToolChange: You can swap the location for Next Tool Call so that its right next to each other on a Mazak. Like this: T10 T25 M6 As far as .EIA or .NC output, its only real significant if you're loading direct to control from hardware (like floppy, memory stick, etc) and ethernet. If your shop has a standard DNC system it uses thru RS-232, you can still load a .NC program into the machine since the file extension doesn't actually transfer. The rest is pretty much personal preference on code output....

LOL!!! Touché tryon.... There many valid reasons to do either and it can be debated for a long time. I see it though from a "general public" or common point of view. Feed the ego per se.... Coming from a mill, its much more "impressive" to say that you're feeding at 1280 IPM than to say .040 IPT.... To a lathe guy it might not make much sense unless he's telling someone he's moving at .08 per rev...

quote: 1mm and under tools, max 100% 1.5 - 3mm, max 95% 3mm and over, max 90% You can have the post calculate for this as well based on the tool used. Just have to stipulate tooltype and diameter to the equation. quote: nice if feedrate scaling could happen BEFORE posting. I think it can, but its going to take a tool/material library thats set up for the machine in question to do this. I'm guessing you'd end up having to edit common parameters from the "current tools" page of the NC utilities. Bad part might be is all the regenerating. quote: An other thing i'm planning is 'fixed toolnumbers' for all tools. Wouldn't this be a "Tool Library"??

Hey Ron... isn't the Fusion 640MN control actually the "Fusion 640M Nexus "? Early Nexus machines still had Fusions on them and not the Matrix control. And Shawn... I noticed your posting doesn't have an "M6" or a secondary tool call. And a safety line placed with the offset call line after the T code.... any particular reason? Just curious... Other than that... Just like everyone else says... the codes are basically the same. The are a couple of "surprises" when it comes to M codes though. For example "M11"... Table Unclamp in Fanuc... Tool unclamp on Mazak... Can't count how times I've seen guys drop the tool out of the spindle when they were trying to turn the table in MDI..

Edit.... "And it works both ways, whether you go up or down." This is miss-stated somewhat. Going "up" was another post that had a script prompt to change RPM by a percentage and thereby changing the feed. Didn't use it much.... only scaled down mostly which is easily handled by the post.... Bedtime... more setting up tomorrow....

note:... I'm setting up a new part on a FH8800 so bear with me here.... quote: The way Rob has it setup (I think) is that no matter what machine you have active (whatever the max rpm) the chip load will be the same when mc scales down the rpm, and thats what I'm after here. Yes, thats the way it works. It maintains the chip load no matter what rpm. And it works both ways, whether you go up or down. Although going up has other issues since you have to edit the running rpm for the tool parameter which will try to draw the chip load setting from the material/tool library. At one shop, we used to just program to the highest speed spindle we had. Then it didn't matter for which machine we posted... it was at least the same rpm or less which the post took care of. I don't bother with material libraries and tool libraries are only set for max conditions and tool matrix on dedicated machines. quote: The only issue I see with that is lying to the machine defs about the minimum/maximum speeds and that's not a big deal. (I'm imagining the looks on our operators when they see 48000 rpm on the tooling sheets for the Fadals) You don't have to lie about machine definitions.... at least you shouldn't. The beauty of this post is that you can just simply change the post to have an adjusted program for a slower machine. No need to mass edit common parameters within the operations manager. Now I don't know how this will affect your tool sheets since I don't use MC's tool sheets either (Don't like it... ). But looks like Mark says it works....

Mark, Yes you can scale feed. I've been doing that in posts for quite a few versions now. All you need to do is create a formula for the math, a variable for MC to use, and the calculation for the feed to use. Something like this: (note: this is from a converted post that I've been using since V7) First, create a string to save the current or programmed spindle speed... like "savess" or something. Then, you just create the math: pfr # this will scale the feedrate if the max rpm is excceded scalefr = savess / ssmax if savess > ssmax, fr = fr / scalefr if fr > 0, fr For MCX built posts, I think the variable is "maxss". I'm not near a X post right now to check this. Anyway, hope you get the idea... This is coming off the top of my head so bear with me. You can also create a safety line for negative outputs in case the scaling brings the feed to less than "0" to have the post give you an error while posting or a command line in the program that the machine won't run. Gotta get moving... things to do... I'll check back later if you've got questions.... Edit: Call Mark over at Triad (if he's still there). I think he knows how this is done as well... If not, I'll check back

quote: I have studied the generic Fadal post w Ridgid tapping and it works. but without the G84.2 code. Hmm.. I just posted using the generic Fadal post and it posted with G84.2 in it. On the cycle select for the cut parameters, are you selecting "Rigid Tap - G84.1/G74.1" . This should output the G84.2 for you. The regular tap cycle select (G84/G74) won't output the G84.1 or G84.2 . As far as modifying an updated post... It's a bit hard to say what you need to edit to make an older version work this way without knowing the history of the converted post. Could be a lot of work, could a little work... hard to say. Maybe someone who knows more of Fadal posts can help out...

I'm with James.... quote: I use Collets all the time. I detest side lock holders for anything other than hogging low and slow. ..... I detest sidelock holders in general. quote: Then again, I use High Speed Machining Techniques ALWAYS... Ditto... There are some other methods to consider as well... Coolant thru endmills, coolant grooved endmills, some mill chucks are slotted at the sleeve, some shrinkers are coolant slotted, high end collet chucks like Mega chucks from Big Kaiser and a couple types from Lyndex/Nikken. But running coolant thru an ER collet has been done, is done, and works well... even better with 1000PSI...

quote: When you buy a Mazak what is the option you have to pay extra for? EIA capable or Mazatrol? No, .. not since M/T32 version B or C... although you could "Opt out" the EIA on the Plus boards. As of the Fusion though its totally all standard. Not totally sure if its across the board though. For some reason they "pick and choose" some "standards and options" sometimes depending on the machine. You can even still get FANUC boards installed on some models.. quote: The guy's on the Mazak Lathes got ticked off because they didn't have the company by the nuts anymore. I had all their programs and tool info backed up so they couldn't claim that they had to reprogram the repeat jobs everytime Good for them (not really, but let me explain..) I'm more amazed at the fact that the company management didn't realize what a load of crap the lathe guys were able to get away with by saying that. quote: ... worked out the 3 digit gcode you could get mazatrol programs to run via eia with no problem. Sure can.. back in the day, I used to edit alot of Mazatrol programs offline that way on a text editor. Even wrote several (not 100% but pretty darn close). Most of the 3-digit codes are in the programming books towards the back and it lays out the format and variables needed. For the rest of them (ones not explained or in detail), just simply output a Mazatrol program through the Tape I/O and you can pretty much figure out what the codes needed are. And with that, I'd imagine you could write a post for MCX to output 3-digit, then bring it into the machine for Mazatrol...

Sorry if I'm not getting something here but..... If you're only making a 2 pass, zig-zag facing path (one across and one back) like you show and want to climb cut.... why bother trying to manipulate a Facing path? Or even pocket facing? Instead, just use a regular old contour path by selecting 3 of the sides for the contour. Then just select the cutter comp (with or without, on center, whatever) and adjust the stock for XY as a negative value to increase the step over. Select your cut depths and check the box for "Keep Tool Down" and use the Lead In/Out to keep the Z moves off the part. Simple I think... and you don't have to "reverse toolpath", change left to right, transform operation, draw extra lines of geometry, create nci geoemetry, etc. etc. etc. When you need to adjust it, you just adjust it and regenerate. You don't have to unlock the toolpath or anything. The only real difference is that you won't get the end loops as an option. The toolpath will basically follow the geometry selected.

Hey Mark,.... just feed your taps in IPR instead and ignore the calculations.... Let your machine figure it out..

No Mark.... I came across it on another forum. Thought it was interesting enough to see if anyone here dealt with these.... My guess, you'd have to at least run a 100,000rpm air spindle,... which BTW only works out to about 5 SFPM (Ø.0002 endmill) Then, if you figure on many tools have a FPT ratio of about 1-2% of cutting diameter... gives you a feed of .2-.4 IPM... I sure hope that slot isn't too long... So, let's see.... 1000SFPM for aluminum = 19,085,000 rpm (give or take) I'm picturing my 50 taper machines spinning that right now.... NOT!! quote: I need one with a .0001 corner radius. That would make it a Ball endmill....

LOL .... gives new meaning to "minimum radius"..... And they offer it in "stub and standard length of cut". .... Which means exactly what?? Yeah, how about an HSM style??

Hadn't heard that story about the drills eh Mark (Where Roberts story is adapted from).... So, let's see.... They claim to be able to make an endmill with .0002 cutting diameter. Considering that many tool holders spec out at .0004 @ say 4.0" from the nose... If you used an extension in one... HMMMM I guess you'd be cutting the part with an "ice cream scoop" effect... or kinda like hogging out a pocket with a treepan...