[billiards]

Is it possible to do a Loop Linear that moves in the Y Axis first, instead of X?

[Motherlode97]

A bit more info please.

ML97

[billiards]

Yes, sorry. That should have been 'Loop Rectangular', not Loop Linear.

I have 3 vices 220mm apart, with two 'blocks' back to back in the vices.

X=3
Y=2

X=220
y=-48

When I run this, it always moves in the X axis first. Is it possible to make it do the two blocks in the first vice, and so on.

[Motherlode97]

Ok got it. Your program should look like this:

Pattern Loop Linear ( this would be distance between vises)

Pattern Loop Linear, X Distance 0, Y Distance (actual distance)

Machine operation blocks here

Pattern End

Pattern End


This should do it for you.

ML97

[billiards]

Thanks for that ML97. I will give that a go.

[sluggo]

why don't you use loop location? if you have multiple vises, with different location, it seems obvious to me to use loop location.

[Motherlode97]

Yes you're correct. Loop (Locations, Linear, & Rectangular) would all do the job and provide the same tool movements. The best programs are the ones in which less keystrokes are the best. By using Loop Locations more info must input which introduces more chances for errors. I'm sure you know that in CNC programming Murphy's Law always applies.

ML97

[billiards]

I have not been 'introduced' to Loop Locations yet. I will have to investigate.

However, thanks for your input guys.

[Motherlode97]

You're welcome. BTW, Loop Locations are no big deal. Each location is simply an offset from the original. EX:

Location 1 X0 Y0 Z0 (Duplicate at Part 0)
Location 2 X220.000 Y-42.000 Z-1.200 (Duplicate at this point)
Location 3 ........
Location 4 ....

This works well when duplicating tool motions which are not equally spaced but again requires more data input.

ML97

[spork2367]

bringing this back from the dead. be careful about putting a loop within a loop. you shouldn't ever do a recovery restart on a loop within a loop. there is a glitch in the ultimax II software that will multiply z depths incrementally by the number of pecks. makes for an interesting drill cycle that will leave you absolutely baffled.

[Motherlode97]

Boy I'll say!
The max II software was "bug infested" to be kind. All of those pesky quirks were identified and corrected in the max III and later versions.

ML

[spork2367]

to be fair, i don't know that i'd call it bug infested. like many controls it has its quirks. it does some strange cutter comp stuff, i run the last update on the Ultimax II controllers 8.something and run into very few issues. for a controller made in 1990 running the predecessor to the 286 processor, it's not too bad. most of the strange stuff it does do, it does consistently.

[Motherlode97]

Fair? I was there. At one time the list of bugs was close to 2,200! I call that infested.

ML

[spork2367]

i run two Ultimax II machines every night of the week. just out of interest, what are some of these 2200 bugs? maybe list a few of the big ones. i'm genuinely interested as i've run into very few problems running these.

[Motherlode97]

As I recall V8.5 or so was the last release of Ultimax II. A huge amount of errors were reported related to cutter comp. As I recall if you had a very short contour (like 3 segments or less) cutter comp might crash. One example comes to mind. Program a d-hole (common shape for electronic panels). Line-arc-line. See if your version crashes. Many errors were graphics. Some were auto-calc where the software would not correctly calculate end points in a contour (even when the data was entered correctly).
The longer you program the more likely you'll stumble upon a few more.

ML

[spork2367]

i use a lot of short 1-3 segment contours, as well as a few 150+ segment contours, and have never had a crash with either that wasn't my fault. the most i've noticed is feedrate glitches such as awkward pauses. the biggest problem i ran into was when a board went bad, and the program would scroll through menus on it's own, then edit the part program while i was in the bathroom, or working on another machine and the machine was in manual. would remove entire blocks. the machine was coy about it to begin with. i'd run an entire part and pull it out, only to notice a feature missing. finally it got to the point where it was scrolling through menus while i was standing there. it was like somebody was running it remotely.