[Orange]

Hi there

Is anybody using RhinoCAM and IRBCAM?

I´m having problems when I´m creating a milling operations with more than one working plane. If I post all the operations as one g-code IRBCAM doesn´t load the points. If I however post each operation individually and then load them one by one into IRBCAM the points don´t fit together.

The problems has something to do with the different working planes but I haven´t figured out how to solve it.

Thank you for your reply

[BAMCNC.COM]

I use rhinocam, what post (machine type) are you using?

[Orange]

I post the processes as .apt files.

[BAMCNC.COM]

What machine have you selected in RhinoCAM, this is where the problem may be.

[awerby]

This guy's out on the bleeding edge of technology, trying to run a SCARA (robot arm) with RhinoCAM. Apparently IRB provides a post-processor, but how exactly that's supposed to integrate with RhinoCAM is difficult to say. What it sounds like, is that one loads the part and generates the code with RhinoCAM (and no particular post), then feeds that to IRB, which calculates the inverse kinematics for the arm and posts correct G-code. It may be possible to use IRB as a post in RhinoCAM, but that doesn't seem to be working too well. I'd suggest asking the IRB folks about this, since nobody else is likely to know.

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com

[happytriger2000]

[MARV]

Don't know if this thread is dead or not, but thought I'd respond if the original question persists;

Instructions for handling a complex 5 axis post in IRBCAM are explained in the IRBCAM manual in section 7.14 page 84.

For others who may be following this, successfully posting out of RhinoCam to a 6 axis robot thru IRBCAM involves posting an APT-CL file (a file format, not to any specific machine) and importing that file into IRBCAM where the toolpath is configured to the specific robot type. After some adjustments of toolpath to accommodate issues specific to the robot, a file is posted out of IRBCAM in a format specific to the manufacturer as most robot manufacturers have developed their own proprietary. code. In the case of ABB robots, the file format is RAPID.

For those of you who are scratching their heads over why someone might attempt this; yes there is not the accuracy using a robot and there are already 5 axis machines out there with similar capabilities. But there is also work to be done in other media (wood, plastics, plaster, etc.) that may require much larger work envelopes (robots can be synced to linear tracks and/or rotary index tables). And given the great number of idle robots out there, a workable system can be assembled for a very reasonable amount of money (when compared to comparable industrial 5 axis machines).

One word of caution, although there are a few places that offer complete turnkey packages, most people doing this are assembling systems from bits and pieces (much the same as others here are doing with 3 and 4 axis machines). And it can become a bit daunting (we've just completed our system assembled over the course of a year). The biggest obstacle for us was wrapping our head around the operation of the robot.