G41/G42 discussion.

Post anything you want to discuss with others about the software.

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby ger21 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:48 pm

1/4" tool = 2 passes at 300ipm
1/2" tool = 1 pass at 800ipm.

What I showed was not a leadin along an arc, but a leadin prior to the arc. Any control can do that move.
We don't use leadins like that, because we are cutting parts out of a nested sheet, and there is no room to enter at 90°. So we ramp in at a 3°-5° angle in between parts, to maximize material usage.
Gerry
UCCNC 2017 Screenset - http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html
ger21
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:17 am

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Battwell » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:52 pm

an example of an old hand coded parametric part- using tool offset for everything (which was the norm using this control)
just a simple part- but you can see how easy it is to get short segments
https://youtu.be/SYUme8WaiXg
Uc300eth on router and mill
If they say it can't be done- I find a way!
Battwell
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:39 pm
Location: South Wales. Uk

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Vmax549 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:58 pm

OK thinking about your example code and I did test this.

Where it gouges there is a short square jog out with a short segment. IF you changed that to a radiused segment with a radius teh same as teh tool radius then it runs with teh .500 tool. AND teh finished shape would be no different than IF teh controller could handle teh original shape. So it is possible to correct it with part programming without changing teh finished shape.

Just a thought, (;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Vmax549 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:06 pm

Hi Battwell , How did it handle an outside circle profile as far as eliminating teh undercutting from teh leadin comp? Did you have to overcut teh circle by teh tool radius or did teh control handle it ?

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby ger21 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:09 pm

I can work around the gouge in a variety of ways if I have to. We'll just see how it all shakes out.
A mostly working comp is much better than no comp. ;)

Just need to fix the leadins.
Gerry
UCCNC 2017 Screenset - http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html
ger21
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:17 am

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Vmax549 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:25 pm

I can work around the gouge in a variety of ways if I have to. We'll just see how it all shakes out.
A mostly working comp is much better than no comp. ;)



I agree 1000 % :P IF UCCNC will warn me of a gouge I can fix.

(;-) TP
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Battwell » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:33 pm

Vmax549 wrote:Hi Battwell , How did it handle an outside circle profile as far as eliminating teh undercutting from teh leadin comp? Did you have to overcut teh circle by teh tool radius or did teh control handle it ?

(;-) TP

id just lead into a circle with an arc. - control handled it- exiting at the same as entry point nothing was left uncut.

but the gouging is what stopped me programming like that- i now use vectric cad/cam - so no need for comp for me now .
my biesse control has long gone!- everything had to be typed into control- no dnc facility etc on it
was made by fred flintstone... but he made comp work lol
Uc300eth on router and mill
If they say it can't be done- I find a way!
Battwell
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:39 pm
Location: South Wales. Uk

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby Vmax549 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:59 pm

Just a Note on Comp with subs and this used to drive Mach3 users plum crazy.

I ran UCCNC G41 deep into a SUB stack (10 subs deep) and teh comp worked fine :mrgreen:

I did it 2 ways G90 and G91. :P

(;-)
Vmax549
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:25 am
Location: USA

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby ger21 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:09 am

ger21 wrote:I can work around the gouge in a variety of ways if I have to.

Something like this seems to work well.

comp 4.JPG
Gerry
UCCNC 2017 Screenset - http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2017.html
ger21
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:17 am

Re: G41/G42 discussion.

Postby cncdrive » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:22 am

I agree 1000 % :P IF UCCNC will warn me of a gouge I can fix.


This is good statement, because it points out the fact that if the software would know when a gouging happens then action could be taken, but for that it has to know when it happens.
So, if the software could detect these cases then it is likely that we could figue out an extension algorithm to the basic algorithm to not let the gouging to happen.
But for this the task is to determinate the condition when gouging happens.
The condition should be very precisely defined, because if the condition is not precise then the extension code which would fix the gouging will hurt other cases when gouging not happens, the wrong condition will make the software think it happens and so it will hurt other cases when it would try to correct when there is nothing to correct.
So, the first task is to determinate very precisely when exactly the gouging happens, and then that could be used as a condition check which if mets then correction code could run to avoid creating it.
I'm not saying yet if it is possible or not, because it may be not possible to do this is the condition can't be distiungish from other cases, but if the cases can be determinated clearly then I see a chance that additional correction code could be used to fix it.
cncdrive
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion about the UCCNC software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests