[Dan911]

Using a O in any program is normal, no one said it was wrong, having it Lower Case will cause a problem, in a normal Control, As I said Mach3 will except wrongly written Code that other controls will Fault out

The O would stop it, but if you are running Mach3 almost anything will run

I already said M97 does not run on all controls, it would have to be also formatted correctly also,if it was going to run, it is different from the M98

Wow...Your exhausting.

[109jb]

Hi.....thanks for that....not sure what my controller supports....I'll probably not want to go beyond the G59 but it's nice to know you could......if I do a test G code sequence and type G59-1, and the code is accepted.....woopee do... another success story.
Ian.

Just a note. 59-1 as you have it in your post won't work. It is 59.1 with a decimal point, not a hyphen

[Dan911]

Hi
needsome help. Im runing Hartford matrix VMC-560. I got this problem:
i would like to write a gcode, to make 3 identical electrodes. When i generate my gcode in solidacm, it is in position g45(default). How to change code, so that when electrode on g54 is complete the machine contntinues milling same electrode on g55 and g56 position.
This ismy code :

In response to OP"s original question.


You can accomplish this with a subroutine. Below is sample code of 1 part getting cut in 3 different offsets ( 54,55,56), each offset with a different X0 Y0.




O0000 (offset test)

G20 G40 G80 G17

N1 (FLAT 1-4 IN 2F EC SCB)
G00 G90 G43 G54 X-0.125 Y-0.125
T1 M6
Z1.
S8000 M3
M9
M98 P0001


G55 X-0.125 Y-0.125
M98 P0001

G56 X-0.125 Y-0.125
M98 P0001

G91 G28 X0 Y0
M30

o0001
G00 Z0.5
G01 Z-0.5 F144.
Y12.125 F288.
X12.125
Y-0.125
X-0.125
G00 Z1.
M99



RCaffin provided some good info/techniques on cutting multiple parts in multiple offsets using code from 1 part with a simple subroutine. Search this thread.

[mactec54]

The O would stop it, but if you are running Mach3 almost anything will run

Put it in context, with the program you had written

o0001 This is part of your program is it not, and is what the above statement was all about in a normal control this would not run
G00 Z0.5
G01 Z-0.5 F144.
Y12.125 F288.
X12.125
Y-0.125
X-0.125
G00 Z1.
M99

[mactec54]

In response to OP"s original question.


You can accomplish this with a subroutine. Below is sample code of 1 part getting cut in 3 different offsets ( 54,55,56), each offset with a different X0 Y0.




O0000 (offset test)

G20 G40 G80 G17

N1 (FLAT 1-4 IN 2F EC SCB)
G00 G90 G43 G54 X-0.125 Y-0.125
T1 M6
Z1.
S8000 M3
M9
M98 P0001


G55 X-0.125 Y-0.125
M98 P0001

G56 X-0.125 Y-0.125
M98 P0001

G91 G28 X0 Y0
M30

o0001
G00 Z0.5
G01 Z-0.5 F144.
Y12.125 F288.
X12.125
Y-0.125
X-0.125
G00 Z1.
M99



RCaffin provided some good info/techniques on cutting multiple parts in multiple offsets using code from 1 part with a simple subroutine. Search this thread.

The only problem is this will only run on a Hobby control, it would crash and burn on a real VMC, it is missing some important pieces of code, for it to be safely run

[Dan911]

The only problem is this will only run on a Hobby control, it would crash and burn on a real VMC, it is missing some important pieces of code, for it to be safely run

What a surprise, Mactec54 trolling the threads with nothing more to add but insults with no facts.

The fact of the matter is a subroutine is the way to go to achieve what the OP asked. Never claimed to be a programmer but that sample code is certainly enough to point someone in the right direction and tweak to there needs. Don't think anyone needs three 12x12 squares cut in three different offsets. The Code worked fine in Mach3 and 4. I'm sure you will flood this thread with more nonsense so the useful information will get buried.


Maybe a real programmer will chime in and add something useful.

[mactec54]

What a surprise, Mactec54 trolling the threads with nothing more to add but insults with no facts.

The fact of the matter is a subroutine is the way to go to achieve what the OP asked. Never claimed to be a programmer but that sample code is certainly enough to point someone in the right direction and tweak to there needs. Don't think anyone needs three 12x12 squares cut in three different offsets. The Code worked fine in Mach3 and 4. I'm sure you will flood this thread with more nonsense so the useful information will get buried.


Maybe a real programmer will chime in and add something useful.

Only what you post could you get the distinction of a Troll(nuts)

You are making a fool of yourself again, everything was covered by the 4th post, you have been only repeating and copying what was already said and done

[Dan911]

Lol.....I'm making a fool of myself.

If everything was done on forth post than why you posted in every page arguing and insulting at least 4 members along the way.

Don't want to be part of this ...Troll on to your next victim.

Once again good info buried with your nonsense.

[RCaffin]

The issue of machine-specific codes and formats seems to be a contentious one. In the beginning the available computing power for CNC control was very limited - really limited, and some short-cuts and hacks were made by some early controller mfrs. However, these were short cuts, and such controllers do not implement the full standard NIST RS274/NGC language for CNC control. In addition, some early controllers did some things in ways which deviate from the NIST Standard. The problems we have today with all this is that some people, brought up in a single controller environment, seem to believe that theirs is the only way to do things properly. To suggest otherwise threatens their world-view, which is a pity.

For instance, HAAS controllers (and maybe many others) can only accept upper case commands and some commands must be in a fixed format. Thus we find that O1234 is acceptable while o1234 is not. To make matters worse, early generations required 4 digits (O1234) while later generations of the same brand require 5 digits (O12345). However, the NIST Standard does say Input is case insensitive, except in comments, i.e., any letter outside a comment may be in upper or lower case without changing the meaning of a line. So we must say that the HAAS controllers are not compliant with the Standard. In addition, some have claimed that while X-12.34 is legal, X+12.34 is not. Again, the NIST Standard states that This makes some strange-looking input legal. The line “g0x +0. 1234y 7” is equivalent to “g0 x+0.1234 y7”, for example. Clearly, a controller which does not accept + signs is not Standard-compliant.

So the CNC world has many quite popular 'dinosaur' controllers which are not compliant with the NIST RS274/NGC Standard. The vendors have a vested interest in maintaining their market position, which is understandable, but using their controllers locks the customer into a single vendor. More modern CNC controllers are Standards-compliant, and programs used on them are far more portable. I won't claim full portability exists yet - sadly. But just as the open-standard IBM PC format swamped all other proprietary computer formats, so we may expect that NIST-compliance will eventually dominate the CNC market. Mfrs will complain, but customers will be happy.

Cheers
Roger

[109jb]

NIST compliance? You don't think 36 years is long enough? RS274-D was last modified/accepted in 1980 and still isn't universally adopted. Based on how long it has been, it never will be.

BTW, RS274NGCngc isn't a standard. ngc stands for next generation controller, and was a NIST project to design an interpreter. NIST no longer supports it and the source code has morphed into LinuxCNC. It was never a standard, but used the RS274-D code.

[RCaffin]

I know, I know. But at least it is a published open standard, and not proprietary.
36 years is a while, but as many companies are still running machines that old, it may take a while ...
One can hope.

Cheers
Roger

[handlewanker]

Just a note. 59-1 as you have it in your post won't work. It is 59.1 with a decimal point, not a hyphen

Hi....OOOPS.....thanks for that....duly added with the dot to my CNC notes.
Ian.

[mactec54]

I know, I know. But at least it is a published open standard, and not proprietary.
36 years is a while, but as many companies are still running machines that old, it may take a while ...
One can hope.

The first numerical control programming language was developed at the MIT Servomechanisms Laboratory in the late 1950s.

This is what you had in the 1970's I would hope things have advanced quite some since then, 256K 8 inch floppy disc's was it, or a punch tape reader which I have both as pieces of history, even though RS274 standard has not changed that much since the 1980's almost every control that is made today still runs the standard RS274 format , including the Haas control, that you said is not compliant, as does Fanuc and most other controls

Anyone running controls that old are not doing any kind of serious business

A capital " O " has always been how it has been formatted since the 1970's and is the standard RS274 format

There are different codes that manufactures make up, to add value to the speed in which you can program faster, this has no effect on the Standard RS274 format, and the programmer has the choice to use the standard format or an enhanced format

I have 5 different machines that have different controls, German, Japanese and USA made Controls, they will all run the same standard G-Code format

[RCaffin]

Hi Mactec

Would you have a copy of the RS274-D standard, as opposed to the RS274NGC? It seems to rather hard to find. Everyone refers to it, but no-one seems to have a copy.

Cheers
Roger
PS: I started with a Teletype, before floppies were invented, but my wife refused to have one in the house.

[handlewanker]

Hi.....were you going to have to knock a wall down to get it into the house and the wife spat the dummy.....LOL.......?.....I'm glad I wasn't into NC back then.....too much for the average mind to contemplate......it's so easy now compiling a program and loading it on a USB flash drive.....even burning a CD or DVD to save a program is a tedious exercise.......and with WiFi, what more can I say.....spoilt rotten .
Ian.

[RCaffin]

were you going to have to knock a wall down to get it into the house and the wife spat the dummy.
No, I was developing a control and data collection system for a scientific research instrument. Paper tape and Teletype printouts ... NOISE!
I ended up persuading the multinational computer vendor to let me use their in-house system sitting in the front foyer: it had a (primitive) disk drive and a glass terminal. Very posh. I think I may have been a demo unit for them: real customer doing real SW development ... The research system I built worked just fine for many years, and was duplicated several times.

Memories of long ago - 'they' burnt the building down around the instrument. The computer was rescued, covered in ash and some fire brigade water. Vendor Field Service cleaned it down and switched it on. It still ran, and still had the program in the core memory! That story went around Sydney (and Melbourne too), and did the vendor no harm at all :-)

Cheers
Roger

[mactec54]

Hi Mactec

Would you have a copy of the RS274-D standard, as opposed to the RS274NGC? It seems to rather hard to find. Everyone refers to it, but no-one seems to have a copy.

Cheers
Roger
PS: I started with a Teletype, before floppies were invented, but my wife refused to have one in the house.

Teletype machines hardly relate, to the first NC machine control

You might find some information from here https://quizlet.com/13626489/info ( You will have to sign up to get access,) or you will have to buy it from the Standard's for $75us they do have it updated, latest release is 2016

[wendtmk]

I'm going to say it one more time. Knock out the personal attacks and insults or this thread will be locked. There is a lot of good info being passed in this thread and some folks need to stop acting like 13 year olds in the sand box.

Mark

[RCaffin]

Hi wendtmk
If I have given offense, my apologies.
Roger

[wendtmk]

Roger,

It wasn't you.

Mark