Re: RS274 vs RS274-NIST

Hi Dave, Jerry,

OK, I see that! You've broken out the X,Y move. Yeah, that would have
been a little simpler to write! I was toying (as I've mentioned) with
writing a "canned cycle" for the digitizer probe. Effectively I have,
although I call a 'C' function rather then running a part program.
G61/G31 somewhat does this, but they are not a "cycle".

What I think you may have lost is the ability use the looping 'L', along
with incremental (relative) G91 motion. But then, as complicated as it
is, maybe it's no great loss! With a CAD/CAM package to develop code,
spreading things out over a few lines to get several holes is no big
deal. I do like the peck cycles.

"G81 as well as G92", I'm assuming you mean G82. I DO like G92,
simplifies zeroing axis!

Getting a release out is no trivial effort! And the testing! SO easy
to kill something else when adding/fixing another feature of the
program! Great to hear you're making progress!

Jerry,

Where did you find your release 3 publication? My Interpreter version 3
doesn't have it. A 2000 document, are we talking about the same
document?

Alan KM6VV


dkowalcz@... wrote:

>
> Hi Alan, Jerry,
>
> According to my RS-274D spec, G78 is fair game for anything (G76-79
> are unassigned). G83 is peck drilling in the same standard, which
> TurboCNC doesn't include at this writing.
>
> So why did I write my own cycle, when one already exists? Well, a
> G83 cycle positions XY, then pecks in Z.
>
> But on a lathe, the tailstock axis is usually W, not Z. When the
> user defines his axis setup, he might want to peck drill in some
> other peculiar way, or use the "peck turning" trick to get a short
> chip in plastic as well. So, I took the more general approach and
> wrote a G78 cycle. The following two code snippets are equivalent:
>
> ;EIA 274D Standard
> G83 X1 Y1 C0 D-1 K-0.100 F5
>
> ;TurboCNC 3.0f
> G00 X1 Y1
> G00 Z0
> G78 Z-1 I-0.100 F5
>
> I'm rather humiliated to point out that the download version on the
> webpage has a bug in G78 that will trip the program up if the peck
> drilling has to cross the zero point of its axis.
>
> Alan, another release *is* planned for sometime this weekend. In
> addition to other things (like fixing the G78 bug), I laboriously re-
> wrote all of the time critical motion code into assembly language,
> which adds an enormous speed increase when interpolating.
>
> G81 will be in there as well as G92, although I haven't decided on
> whether to include some of the other canned cycles.
>
> Suggestions on new things to add or improvments to make to the
> software are welcome...
>
> Dave Kowalczyk
> Everett WA
> TurboCNC machine controller ->> http://www.dakeng.com
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Alan Marconett KM6VV <KM6VV@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > Might be a little more like "did Dave make his G78 function" match
> the
> > RS274 NIST, or another "standard". Good write-up in NIST (or one
> of the
> > papers) for the Drill cycle. I even tried writing the G81 drill,
> G82
> > drill with dwell, and G83 Drill with peck cycles. That takes some
> > work! I'd study the parameters, and watch the cycles run. You
> should
> > be able to observe the pecking cycles go deeper and deeper, and
> retract
> > to the appropriate level. You'll also want to observe if G98 (Old Z
> > retract mode) is implemented. Throw in Absolute or Relative mode
> on top
> > of it (makes those 'L' repeats drill a series of holes) and it
> REALLY
> > gets complicated! (I'm not sure I've got it ALL working...yet).
> >
> > I was thinking that a digitizing probe "cycle" might be a good one
> to
> > implement! Unless I can find one to copy.. er, implement.
> >
> > Perhaps Dave can comment on his implementation! (I've heard he's
> > working on another release).
> >
> > There is a Gcode list on Yahoo that attempts to collect and compare
> > Gcodes. Not much activity as of late.
> >
> > Alan KM6VV
> >
> >
> > Carol & Jerry Jankura wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I've started reading through the NIST release 3 publication, one
> chapter of
> > > which describes the operation of the various G-Codes that the
> NIST system
> > > supports. It appears that the NIST version supports some codes
> that my
> > > controller does not and does not support others that it does. For
> example,
> > > NIST uses G83 for "peck" drilling while the controller I'm
> working wirh,
> > > TurboCNC uses G78 for what appears to be the same function.
> > >
> > > Now, I do understand that there are several "standards" that
> masquerade as
> > > RS274. Is the NIST G83 code the same as the TurboCNC G78 code, or
> are there
> > > some subtle differences between the two? Are there any
> other "equivalent"
> > > codes that port from one machine to another. Would I get
> the "correct" peck
> > > drilling cycle if I assigned the G-Code G83 to the same procedure
> that
> > > TurboCNC uses for G78? Does any table that lists all of the known
> G-Codes
> > > exist? If so, where?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -- Carol & Jerry Jankura
> > > Strongsville, Ohio
> > > So many toys, so little time.... (What's a G-Code among
> friends?)
> > >
>