Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

Phil,

It's not just big shops and old iron which benefit from what you're
calling "irrelevant" gcodes.

Cutter radius comp CRC is one very good example:

Regardless of how the CAM spits it out, OR how modern the tools and
CAM are...

If I HAVE CRC, I can many times quickly and EASILY use a different
cutter--or perhaps a resharpened one-- in place of the "designed and
CAM'd" one.

multiple COsys's let me set up fixtures and jigs which allow even a
home shop to be more productive (because without a tool changer many
parts will have to utilise multiple setups). How sad--and horribly
inefficient--if each of these were needing to be RE-setup each time
it's run...

As I said, you missed the mark on this one...

It's NOT about size of memory. NOT about age of machine. NOT about
cost of CAM. NOT about "tradition".

It IS about productivity. (you got that part right!<G>)

Ballendo

Ballendo





--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Mattison"
<mattison20@...> wrote:

>
> Those are good points, and no doubt quite relevant in many

existing shops.

> I'm sure many large expensive machines have controllers with tiny

memory

> capacities because they are ancient as well. The fact is none the

less,

> today, computing power is dirt cheap. I understand there is much

inertia in

> big iron. But the world will move on, like it or not. The RIAA

still doesn't

> get it. Not surprising others don't as well.
>
> Oh, darn! I think my socks are getting wet!
> --
> Phil Mattison
> http://www.ohmikron.com/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lcdpublishing <lcdpublishing@...>
> To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:21 AM
> Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Interface. Gauging interest.
>
>
> > Uh oh, Phil you are treading in very DEEP waters :-)
> >
> > If you don't think tool radius compensation is needed

(especially on

> > a mill), you apparently never ran a machine which make precision
> > parts. TRC and TNRC are both very useful functions in precision
> > machining regardless of CAM side programming, Conversational, or
> > straight G-Code programming.
> >
> > Even canned cycles for drilling are still very functional and
> > useful. Many steels for instance, such as the 10 series, can
> > exhibit varying degrees of machinability. With a canned cycle

for

> > peck drilling, it only takes a couple seconds to adjust for the
> > problems with stingy chips. If you have to go back to the CAM
> > software to make the changes in all the individual moves, it

would

> > certainly take much more time. Make changes, re-post program,
> > transfer to DNC system, download program versus, change one

address

> > in the program and run the next part.
> >
> > Fixture offsets are a wonderful feature, even with CAM systems.
> > Remember, CNC controls do not have an infinite amount of memory.
> > So, without using fixture offsets and sub-programs, many programs
> > would simply be too big to fit in the control's memory. Many of

the

> > PC based controls have fairly large memories, but it is still not
> > infinite.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Mattison"
> > <mattison20@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > I think I said I didn't expect it change any time soon. I said

the

> > RS274NGC
> > > spec is a piece of crap. It is obviously from a time when most

CNC

> > code was
> > > written by hand, like the days when my dad wrote financial
> > programs in
> > > assembly language. It is full of constructs supporting things

that

> > are
> > > largely irrelevant now, like alternate coordinate systems for

array

> > > machining, automatic tool radius compensation, etc. G-Code as a
> > convention
> > > (i.e. G0 G1, etc.) is as good as any equivalent, but the
> > collection of
> > > capabilities is mostly obsolete because most of what was

created

> > to simplify
> > > manual G-Code writing is no longer necessary with all the
> > automatic code
> > > generators already available. Whoever produces the desired

results

> > in the
> > > cheapest, easiest manner will ultimately win, tradition
> > notwithstanding.
> > > --
> > > Phil Mattison
> > > http://www.ohmikron.com/
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: lcdpublishing <lcdpublishing@>
> > > To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:31 AM
> > > Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Interface. Gauging interest.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what you are basing this opinion on, but, don't

expect

> > RS274
> > > > (or simply put, G-Code programming) to go away. The most

complex

> > > > shapes that are machined today are done with G-codes on

ordinary

> > CNC
> > > > machines all over the world.
> > > >
> > > > The G-Code method of programming has been around since the
> > beginning
> > > > of CNC, and will remain there, probably forever. There

really

> > isn't
> > > > anything lacking with it, nor is there anything that can't be
> > machined
> > > > with it.
> > > >
> > > > There have been a number of attempts over the years

to "change

> > the
> > > > world", most have failed, some have done okay. For example,

at

> > one
> > > > point in time, it was thought that programming on the shop

floor

> > was
> > > > the best way to get things done. During that phase, control
> > mfgs. came
> > > > out with various "Conversational" controls which were

somewhat

> > of a
> > > > CAM system on top of the basic G-Code interpreting control.
> > > >
> > > > While this method of programming is still around and still
> > applicable
> > > > in short-run shops, production shops frown on it as being

very

> > > > inefficient. I mean really, you have a $150,000.00+ machine

tool

> > > > being used as a $5,000.00 CAM system.
> > > >
> > > > As to the various flavors of G-Code programming, there have

been

> > many
> > > > attempts to change and it seems as though every control mfg

puts

> > their
> > > > own little spin on it. But it's still the basic G-Code and
> > cartesian
> > > > coordinate system that gets the work done on machine tools.
> > > >
> > > > So, while you may think it is "Crap", the leaders in the

machine

> > tool
> > > > industry put their money on G-Code programming as THE method

of

> > > > programming CNC machines.
> > > >
> > > > Don't expect it to change anytime soon.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > After a careful reading of the various flavors of RS274 it
> > looks to
> > > > me like
> > > > > RS274NGC is pretty much an outdated piece of crap when it
> > comes to
> > > > machine
> > > > > control, surviving only by virtue of familiarity and

inertia.

> > Not
> > > > that I
> > > > > think it is going away any time soon, but it certainly

doesn't

> > look
> > > > like
> > > > > golden handcuffs if you're interested in the general

motion-

> > control
> > > > market.
> > > > > I suspect it may not really have much of a strangle-hold

on the

> > > > hobby CNC
> > > > > market either, since that will have many new-comers if it

is

> > in fact
> > > > growing
> > > > > rapidly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Addresses:
> > > > FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> > > > FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
> > > > Post Messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com,
> > wanliker@,
> > > timg@
> > > > Moderator: pentam@ indigo_red@ davemucha@
> > > [Moderators]
> > > > URL to this group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO

> > > >
> > > > OFF Topic POSTS: General Machining
> > > > If you wish to post on unlimited OT subjects goto:
> > > aol://5863:126/rec.crafts.metalworking or go thru Google.com to
> > reach it if
> > > you have trouble.
> > > > http://www.metalworking.com/news_servers.html
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jobshophomeshop I consider

this

> > to be a
> > > sister site to the CCED group, as many of the same members are
> > there, for OT
> > > subjects, that are not allowed on the CCED list.
> > > >
> > > > NOTICE: ALL POSTINGS TO THIS GROUP BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN BY
> > POSTING THEM.
> > > DON'T POST IF YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS.....NO EXCEPTIONS........
> > > > bill
> > > > List Mom
> > > > List Owner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Addresses:
> > FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> > FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
> > Post Messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com,

wanliker@...,

> timg@...
> > Moderator: pentam@... indigo_red@... davemucha@...
> [Moderators]
> > URL to this group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> >
> > OFF Topic POSTS: General Machining
> > If you wish to post on unlimited OT subjects goto:
> aol://5863:126/rec.crafts.metalworking or go thru Google.com to

reach it if

> you have trouble.
> > http://www.metalworking.com/news_servers.html
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jobshophomeshop I consider this

to be a

> sister site to the CCED group, as many of the same members are

there, for OT

> subjects, that are not allowed on the CCED list.
> >
> > NOTICE: ALL POSTINGS TO THIS GROUP BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN BY

POSTING THEM.

> DON'T POST IF YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS.....NO EXCEPTIONS........
> > bill
> > List Mom
> > List Owner
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>