Re: Gcode standards (Was: easy to learn use cad/cam cnc software?)

Hi Chuck,

Actually there have been several attempts form organizations to
standardize the CNC command set. Truth is, none of them have been
sucessful in doing so.

I would not worry yourself too much about the differences - they are
much more alike, than they are different.

X axis is X on all of them
Y axis is Y on all of them
Z axis is Z on all of them
G00 - Rapid is the same
G01 - Linear interpolation (feed in a straight line) is the same
G02 and G03 - Circular interpolation is nearly the same on all of
them. The one difference being how the arc center is defined, either
incremental or absolute.

Many of the other codes are very similar in nature as well. To give
you an idea of how similar many of the controls are:

Mazak, Okuma (OSP), Mitsubishi, Sodick, Fanuc, Yaznac, GE, Fadal,
Haas, Mach2, K-Cam, and many others, have VERY similar formats for
programs. One of the most common formats is FANUC just due to their
majority stake in the CNC industry (FANUC controls are on many
machine tools).

Once you get the hang of the fundementals, programming one control
versus another is not that much different. They pretty much all
need the same information to function, it's just some of the letters
are used differently to define different things - mostly in canned
cycles.

Hope this helps.

Chris









--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Rice <Chuck@W...>
wrote:

>
> At 2:52 PM -0700 10/31/04, Kim Lux wrote:
> >Truthfully, I would recommend NOT using any drafting or

especially CNC

> >software until you can program the machine manually.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Once you understand how to manually program a CNC machine you can

move

> >on to using automatic toolpath generation software. It will be a

lot

> >easier to understand and troubleshoot the generated code if you
> >understand first hand how to do it manually yourself.
>
> This makes sense to me and is the path that I have chosen, but one
> thing bothers me. From what I understand there is not common gcode
> standard. And the machinists seem to accept this.
>
> I do not understand why there has not an attempt at formally

defining

> the gcode language. Seems like it would benefit everyone. Perhaps

as

> a naive newbie there is a history here that I do not know yet that
> prevents it.
>
> How standard and how different are the various gcode formats. Is
> there a table on the web that shows what command-words are common

and

> where the various packages differ? Is there a standard "test"

gcode

> file that all cnc machines should be able to process to say that

they

> use "standard" gcode? -Chuck-