[TurboStep]

I've written some seriously complex g-code in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if some lines exceeded 256 characters.

I've seen some long lines of code in my time and have heard a wide variety of excuses, but non of them were acceptable. Try to break the code into blocks that can be handled better. It leads to more readable and maintainable code. Debugging becomes much easier and you'll probably have less debugging to do. Long lines of code are like other "strategies" that have been reported here, putting code for all sides of a part in a single file. Its not necessary and will only lead to problems sooner or later (as has already been reported elsewhere). Einstein is attributed to have said "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" (I prefer this to the KISS acronym) and this doesn't just apply to Physics.
Step

[daniellyall]

it always pays to think the program running your machine is DUMB

[mountaindew]

, putting code for all sides of a part in a single file. Its not necessary and will only lead to problems sooner or later (as has already been reported elsewhere). .
Step

Works great for me and method / strategy only un covered ERRORS in the CONTROL SOFTWARE! The code generated is readable and down right simple in my opinion.
I find it far less error prone then managing 5 sprutcam files 4 results files and 5 g-code files to make a single multi sided part. Any change in my model and I'm making new parts in no time all I do is compile g-code and done. A change in your method and your back making 5 more cam files, 4 results files, and 5 g-code files. If that is keep it simple stupid your awesome!

[prototype3a]

In the past, I developed a single subroutine include file that hundreds of programs used. This included generic solutions for common machining problems on the parts at that company. This made new part programs extremely easy to write while still incorporating good strategies like constant surface speed ball milling. Breaking down some lines in those subroutines would just make them more complex by adding unnecessary intermediate calculations.

[TurboStep]

...I find it far less error prone then managing 5 sprutcam files 4 results files and 5 g-code files to make a single multi sided part. ... A change in your method and your back making 5 more cam files, 4 results files, and 5 g-code files. If that is keep it simple stupid your awesome!

Well if you'd read my post in the SprutCam forum carefully (http://www.cnczone.com/forums/sprutc...ml#post1726252) you would realize that:
I don't need 5 sprutcam files - I just need 1.
I don't need 4 results files - I don't need any at all.
I don't need 5 work offsets - I just use 1 (see later).
Yes, I would generate 5 g-code files for a 5 sided part. This is clearly what I want. I'll try to explain one last time.
If I make just one part, or the first prototype, then I want to make changes easily and run each section from the start instead of searching for the beginning of each section in a large file.
If I'm making multiple parts, one at a time, I use one setup at a time and run the whole batch through before going onto the next setup. In your example I would machine side 1 of all parts before moving to side 2 etc.. This way I simply replace the work-piece and press cycle start and run through the whole batch. For setups more involved than just a vice it may be necessary to completely replace setups on the table and this system would also reduce this effort to a minimum.
Now lets consider making 2 parts at the same time using a 2 vice setup. I would probably now use just 2 work offsets. I presume, correct me if I'm wrong, that you would also use 2 work offsets per side e.g. G54 and G55 to mill sides 1, G56 and G57 for sides 2 etc. This approach would then require 2*5=10 work offsets. Oops! Work offsets are a limited resource and should be used sparingly.
Yes I do find this system simple and effective. Oh, and thanks for the complement

By the way, the following string is 256 characters long (I hope) and is IMHO much too long for a single line of code.

ThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256CharactersLongThisStringIs256Character

Step

[SCzEngrgGroup]

Gee, guys.... Isn't it just possible you're both right? For some parts, it is easier to put everything in one G-code file, and to run all the ops on one part, then run all the ops on the next part, and so on until your're done. For others, it's easier to split it up into multiple G-code files, and run one file on all the parts, then run the next file on all the parts, and so on until you're done. It depends on the specifics of the particular part, and the fixturing being used. There is rarely, if ever, only one "right" way to do any of this stuff - it depends on the job that needs to be done, and the equipment, skills, and software you have, and your own personal preference.

Regards,
Ray L.

[GITERDUN]

Gee, guys.... Isn't it just possible you're both right?
Regards,
Ray L.

Ray- It reminds me of that episode of " All In The Family" where Archie and the Meathead argue over whether its best to put on 1 shoe and sock at a time or both socks followed by both shoes.

[TurboStep]

Ray- It reminds me of that episode of " All In The Family" where Archie and the Meathead argue over whether its best to put on 1 shoe and sock at a time or both socks followed by both shoes.

If you're enjoying it you might also want to search for the Procunier threads on this forum
Step

[kevinro]

I think I read that PathPilot is limited to 256 characters per line of code. Is this unique to PathPilot? I don't recall ever seeing a limit like this on any other control.

The 256 character line length limit is part of the language spec for G CODE. Search for G-Code Maximum Characters per line and you will find multiple references to it.

[Spinnetti]

Ray- It reminds me of that episode of " All In The Family" where Archie and the Meathead argue over whether its best to put on 1 shoe and sock at a time or both socks followed by both shoes.

Ha! that one really made an impression on me and I haven't seen it in 30 years! In software development (and we are writing code here), commands are "safest" and easiest to debug if they are atomic - meaning just one thing on a line. That said, one can do it however one wants but.......

It only takes a couple good crashed tools to put the fear in ya. I also like breaking up major functions in a program and run all the parts for a "side", then run the next side on another program etc. like mentioned above.. keeps things real simple. I also avoid running code from the middle somewhere, as sure as *&*T I forgot some move or setting that will end up burying the tool in the part - or worse the vise or table (done both)...

Experience is a harsh teacher! I do like Path Pilot better than Mach for sure, which seems to have a number of "Ghosts in the machine" that would bite from time to time. I'm glad to decouple the pulse from the PC clock.

[prototype3a]

Well, I've been running our PCNC1100 series 2 on the Dell we had laying around and it is still running just fine. I think Tormach errored on the side of caution telling people that they may not be able to install PP on anything other than the 'approved' TMC. So far so good for me with no issues what so ever. I'm really glad I tried installing PP.

[tmarks11]

I think Tormach errored on the side of caution telling people that they may not be able to install PP on anything other than the 'approved' TMC. So far so good for me with no issues what so ever. I'm really glad I tried installing PP.

I think Tormach doesn't make any profit off PP, just off the controller, so providing customer support for PP users who don't use their controller is a losing proposition.

It would be like Apple providing customer support for customers who load OS X on any random computer they find. Apple is in the business of providing support for hardware they sell, not for hardware they don't sell that may or may on be compatible with their software and hasn't been tested by them.

[daniellyall]

they may since`s it`s on a tormach