Tool length weirdness

Ok, I'm pulling my hair out over here. Long proven program all the sudden falling short of the part Z0 on an ID chamfer with a small boring bar. Touched the tool off again to update the table, nothing. Reset the tool, nothing. Here's where it gets weird, I can G0 Z0 both my ref tool and the boring bar BEFORE the program and they hit the same spot. During the program, the boring bar falls .111ish short of the part face (Z0).

Zero changes to the program from when it was running hundreds of parts perfectly, and all done in PP conversational. Update from 2.1.9 --> 2.2.2 hoping that might fix it, but no change.

T01 - Face to Z0
T01 - OD Chamfer
T07 - Drill bore .3125'
T05 - ID Chamfer
T08 - Tap

Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

S.

Is it simply possible that the part is slipping in the collet/chuck?

Definitely not slipping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottDW

Definitely not slipping.

---

Do you have any wear offsets in the tool table? Conversational will apply then, manual won’t unless you specify such

No wear offsets for that tool, or the reference tool. I call T0505 as a habit, anyways.

Hi Scott - have you got any further?

I am not quite following you sequence prior to error, but does it fit a stepper or stepper brake coupling slipping?

Or please explain in more detail.

Cliff

Cliff,

Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

TL:DR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottDW

Cliff,

Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

TL:DR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.

---

Interesting!
Will need to keep an eye on this issue. I have no less then a dozen PP updates over the years and wondered how generic of code was created by conversational setups and how well they run from update to update. To date I have never had this issue with a cam post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottDW

Cliff,

Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

TL:DR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.

---

Thanks for the reply - I hope that was an isolated incident and not going to be a regular problem. Cliff