[brisbanite]

I really hope this doesnt crash my "Secret Identity" on this forum.......:devious:

I have a similair thread on a programming issue with the okuma LC40 Twin-turret lathe.

Here is a variable program (very, very messy, i didnt write it but a bloke just before my time did) of a simple rough face/od, drill, rough bore, finish bore and finish face/od sequence:

$CBUSH.MIN%
G13
(U-DRILL GOES 7MM PAST HALF OF FINISHED LENGTH)
N0600 V1=120.0 (STOCK DIA V1)
N0601 V7=259.0 (FIN LENTH OF PART V7)
N0602 V3=119.30 (FIN OD V3)
N0603 V5=099.00 (STEP DIA V5)
N0604 V8=07.00 (CHAMPFER SIZE V8)
N0605 V6=32.00 (STEP LENTH V6) V9=[V7/2]
N0606 V2=50.0 (U-DRILL DIA V2)
N0607 V4=66.00 (FINISH BORE V4)
N0608
N2 G0 X800 Z350 P10
N3 G50 S750
NAT1
N99 G0 G97 X=V1+5 Z32 S400 M42 T010101 M3 M8 P11
N100 Z3
N101 G96 G110 S180
N102 G85 NLAP1 D1 F.3 W.2
NLAP1 G82
N103 G0 X=V1+5 Z0
N104 G1 X-2 F.2
N105 G80
N106 G0 X=V1+2 Z3
N107 G85 NLAP2 D6 F.28 U.8 W.1
NLAP2 G81
N108 G0 X=[V5-[V8*2]] Z3
N109 G01 G42 Z0 F.25
N110 X=V5 A135
N111 Z=-V6
N112 X=V3-2
N113 X=V3 A135
N114 Z=-[V9+2]
N115 G02 X=V3+4 Z=-[V9+4] I2
N116 G1 X=V1+5
N117 G40
N118 G80
N119 G97 G0 X800 Z350 S400 T0100 M87
N120 M1
G14
N2 G0 X800 Z350 P10
NBT1
N200 G0 G97 X1. Z32 S420 M43 T010101 M3 M8 P20
N201 Z5
N202 G1 Z=-[V9+7] F.1
G1 X0.Z=-[V9+5]
N203 G0 Z30
N204 X800 Z350 T0100
N205 M1
NBT5
N300 G0 X=V2 Z32 T050505 M3 M8 M43 S800
N301 Z5
N302 G96 G111 S140
N303 G85 NLAP3 D5 F.250 U.8 W.1
NLAP3 G81
N304 G0 X=[V4+2] Z3
N305 G1 Z0 G41 F.28
N306 X=V4 A225
N307 Z=-[V9+2]
N308(G3 X=[V4-4] Z=-[V9+4] I-2.)
N309 G1 X=[V2-1]
N310 G40
N311 G80
NBT05
G96 S220
N313 G87 NLAP3
N314 G0 Z30
N315 G97 X800 Z350 T0500 S400 M5 M9
N316 M1
N500 G0 X900 Z750 P99
N390 G13
NAT03
N400 G0 X=[V1+3] Z32 T030303 M3 M8 M42 P40
N401 Z5
N402 G96 G110 S200
N403 G87 NLAP2
N404 G0 Z0
N405 X=V5
N406 G1 X=V4-2 F.25
N405 G0 X800 Z350 T0300 M5 M9 G97 S400 M86
N500 G0 X900 Z750 P99
N47 M02
%


Can the Twin-turret Gurus, please break the program apart (where the "P" codes G13 (A Turret) and G14 (B Turret) are concerned please, and just explain what is going on.

I'm gonna take a piccy of the control tomorrow and i'll be asking a couple more questions on the operation of both turrets.

Thanks Again Guys.

[budgieW]

The program looks OK to me. What is the problem?

[Algirdas]

must be IGF on this control. Is it there? use it - it's the simpliest way to get Your P codes placed correctly. Next P11 is missing, the same with P20 and P40. P40 can't be in between P99. What is P99 intended to use for? synchronised retract to tool change position?

[broby]

must be IGF on this control. Is it there? use it - it's the simpliest way to get Your P codes placed correctly. Next P11 is missing, the same with P20 and P40. P40 can't be in between P99. What is P99 intended to use for? synchronised retract to tool change position?

Well, it goes to show that you do not know a terrible amount about 4 axis program mr Al...
The structure of the P codes is fine in the program.
G13 P10 is synchronised with the G14 P10
Program will execute both A abd B turret until B turret hits line N200 with the P20 code.
At this stage B will now wait until A turret hits either a matching P20 (does not exist) or a higher P code.
In the program line N99 has a P code of P11.
As the current P code number is still P10 the machine will execute the program on the A turret until it hits the next P code on A turret which is P40 on line N400.
At this stage B turret is waiting on line N200 with P20.
As P20 is less than P40, execution will pass to B turret.
A turret will now be waiting while B is executing.
B will stop when it reaches the first line N500 with P99 present.
A turret will now execute as it is waiting on P40.
When A turret reaches the second line of N500 BOTH turrets will commence execution and since this is the end of the program, the machine will finish.

So therefore, there is no problem with the order of P codes in the program.
Like you say, the program is a bit rough, but hey it is a start!
Hope this helps???

BTW Al, the whole point of writing a program like this is to NOT have to write a program each time via IGF (or any other manner).
So if the shape is the same and the part only varies in size, then a macro program like this is ideal.

Regards
Brian.

[Algirdas]

Thank You for clear explanation. It is fine with P codes in some way. I cant' understant the reason for such architecture of simple shape. Look at simulation - does it makes a sense to wait till one of turrets will finish?
And what about block N400 ... P40?
I always promote IGF as Okuma's great adwantage. There is nothing to compare at competitive machinetool and newer was. So it's worth to learn (very simple) and use.

[broby]

Thank You for clear explanation. It is fine with P codes in some way. I cant' understant the reason for such architecture of simple shape. Look at simulation - does it makes a sense to wait till one of turrets will finish?
And what about block N400 ... P40?
I always promote IGF as Okuma's great adwantage. There is nothing to compare at competitive machinetool and newer was. So it's worth to learn (very simple) and use.

What about N400 ... P40? What do you see wrong with this?
The finish OD process is being delayed until the ID processes are completed.
Maybe the turrets would interfere in some way, thus the desire to run the ID & OD processes separate instead of in-synch?

The program runs thus:
G13 UPPER..........G14 lower
P10...................P10
...
P11
N100 Facing
N107 Rough OD
........................N200 P20
........................Drill
........................Rough ID
........................Finish ID
N400 P40
Finish OD
N500 P99............N500 P99
End of program

Because this is a VARIABLE based program, and the chances are that the OD could be close to the ID, Turret clashes might be an issue, thus the reason to split the operations...? There is really only one person that cares... the operator!

As for your statements about Promoting and using IGF as the way to go... well I agree to the extent that when the shapes vary it is a great programming tool, BUT... if you are making a family of parts that are all the same in profile, but vary in size, this type of programming is very effective and powerful!
A program that is fine tuned and optimised fully will thrash the crap out of an IGF produced program every time.
If you then go on and include cycle time reduction coding practices you can decrease cycle times yet again.
Sometimes I have managed to cut 50% from the cycle time from an IGF program to a Macro based program.
Would you put up with slow, inefficient programs, if there was a way of boosting productivity through the use of a bit of clever programming?
IGF is not the answer in itself, just a tool to get you there.

Regards
Brian.

[Algirdas]

Thanks again. I feel more educated now
Sometimes I have managed to cut 50% from the cycle time from an IGF program to a Macro based program.
it means, IGF was not adjusted properly. More likely, it's parameters were not touched at all. There are four strategies user defined at least. This definition is up to technician. Settings by default are not optimised for productivity, of course.
The advantege of IGF is that You set Your technology once, no need to repeat the same settings for every new part. You can concentrate on effectiveness of production with IGF.

[broby]

Thanks again. I feel more educated now

Well that is a surprise! I thought you knew it all! It always comes across that way!

Sometimes I have managed to cut 50% from the cycle time from an IGF program to a Macro based program.
it means, IGF was not adjusted properly. More likely, it's parameters were not touched at all. There are four strategies user defined at least. This definition is up to technician. Settings by default are not optimised for productivity, of course.
The advantege of IGF is that You set Your technology once, no need to repeat the same settings for every new part. You can concentrate on effectiveness of production with IGF.

Well Al, that is total Bull. While parameter settings can go a long way towards getting "good" programs it will never be able to give you a truly, well thought out, optimised program that a competent programmer can create!
IGF will ALWAYS err on the side of caution, where as a programmer (who knows what they are doing) will be able to get the program to fly so much better!
I challenge anyone to program in IGF a part shape that will give an optimum tool path faster than filling out a page of variables!
The program, once created, is optimum and suited to that target family of parts.
This conversation is well off track from the original enquiry, why don't you drop your crap off and lets get on with helping the "brisbanite" with his original enquiry?

Regards
Brian.

[brisbanite]

i have always found that IGF is only good for complex radiuses and tangents. Never in my life will i use it for a simple face, turn, drill and bore program. If you cant program basic ISO get off a CNC.......

[budgieW]

"If you cant program basic ISO get off a CNC....... "

Many people use a lathe and only know IGF.

[broby]

i have always found that IGF is only good for complex radiuses and tangents. Never in my life will i use it for a simple face, turn, drill and bore program. If you cant program basic ISO get off a CNC.......

Once you come to terms with IGF, it is a very powerful tool to create programs quickly and easily, even if all you are doing is Facing, turning, drill and boring.
Really, who in their right mind wants to type out a long hand program, every time, for any part, be it simple geometry or not?
That said, if like I stated above, you have a family of parts that are all the same profile, just variances in sizes, the type of variable based program you are trying to use above is really an easy way of programming.
Cheers
Brian.

[m@chinist]

budgieW - ok, there are many peoples who does not know iso and can operate the machine. there are also many peoples who does not know what igf is.
it is very powerful - but igf is a tool only - You must know what he is doing.
nice when You are machining short series or single / accidental workpieces. but if You cary about the details very often You must change the program after igf to make it faster, better...

[Algirdas Basher]

budgieW - ok, there are many peoples who does not know iso and can operate the machine. there are also many peoples who does not know what igf is.
it is very powerful - but igf is a tool only - You must know what he is doing.
nice when You are machining short series or single / accidental workpieces. but if You cary about the details very often You must change the program after igf to make it faster, better...

This is makin' me very, very nervous. Crivvens what is going on here?

[m@chinist]

why so nervous , which part You do not agree with ?
but its offtopic for some posts already....