504,045 active members
4,679 visitors online
Register for free
Login
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    49

    Tool length weirdness

    Ok, I'm pulling my hair out over here. Long proven program all the sudden falling short of the part Z0 on an ID chamfer with a small boring bar. Touched the tool off again to update the table, nothing. Reset the tool, nothing. Here's where it gets weird, I can G0 Z0 both my ref tool and the boring bar BEFORE the program and they hit the same spot. During the program, the boring bar falls .111ish short of the part face (Z0).

    Zero changes to the program from when it was running hundreds of parts perfectly, and all done in PP conversational. Update from 2.1.9 --> 2.2.2 hoping that might fix it, but no change.

    T01 - Face to Z0
    T01 - OD Chamfer
    T07 - Drill bore .3125'
    T05 - ID Chamfer
    T08 - Tap

    Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

    S.

  2. #2
    Registered
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    82

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Is it simply possible that the part is slipping in the collet/chuck?

  3. #3
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    49

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Definitely not slipping.

  4. #4
    Registered
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Definitely not slipping.
    Do you have any wear offsets in the tool table? Conversational will apply then, manual won’t unless you specify such

  5. #5
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    49

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    No wear offsets for that tool, or the reference tool. I call T0505 as a habit, anyways.

  6. #6
    Registered
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1451

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Hi Scott - have you got any further?

    I am not quite following you sequence prior to error, but does it fit a stepper or stepper brake coupling slipping?

    Or please explain in more detail.

    Cliff

  7. #7
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    49

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.

  8. #8
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1723

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.
    Interesting!
    Will need to keep an eye on this issue. I have no less then a dozen PP updates over the years and wondered how generic of code was created by conversational setups and how well they run from update to update. To date I have never had this issue with a cam post.

  9. #9
    Registered
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1451

    Re: Tool length weirdness

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottDW View Post
    Cliff,

    Yes, I got the issue resolved. The g-code was no different to the eye, but when I ran it through a g-code interpreter it was showing strange characters that I had not put into the code. After lots of calls with people way smarter than me, what we determined is a newer version of PP than the one it was written in didn't agree the old code. The new post interpreted some NL and CR where there was none and barfed right in front of that op. It's still confusing to me how it happened.

    I reprogrammed that op fully from the new version of PP and it worked like a charm.

    TLR - New PP post didn't like old PP code.
    Thanks for the reply - I hope that was an isolated incident and not going to be a regular problem. Cliff

Similar Threads

  1. Tool length offset table in combination with undefined tool
    By extrapilot in forum Mach Software (ArtSoft software)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2019, 12:01 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-27-2015, 10:04 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-23-2013, 05:46 PM
  4. SMM2 Tool Setting Weirdness
    By TravisR100 in forum Haas Mills
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •