> > Moving away from the current patch, I want to talk about how things > work in the new-fangled tool table I am looking at. > > On 15 May 2013 01:23, Chris Morley <chrisinnana...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I think you really have to separate the ideas of tool number, wear offset > > and tool offset. > > Possibly. So then the question becomes whether the wear offsets are > independent entities, or whether they "belong" to a tool. > > It appears that the convention is that there is only one geometry > offset for each tool. (though whatever we do, G43 H will still allow > you to apply the geometry offsets from one tool to another) > I think this has to be the case, because if a Tool table entry isn't a > set of geometry offsets then I really don't know _what_ it is.
I agree the tool table holds tool info. Presently we connect specific tool position to specific tool information - this isn't always true in the real world. > > We could maintain a separate set of wear offsets, and then lathe-style > code could choose from that table. > Or we could allow each Tool to have multiple wear offsets. This would > mean that the wear offsets of T0101 and T0201 would not necessarily be > the same. This might come as a surprise to operators, but they can be > the same if the tool table is set up that way. > > What I would then propose is that G10 L1 P4401 would set wear-offset > 01 for tool 44. > For compatibility, G10 L1 P10044 could be configured to set wear > offfset 44 for tool 44. It could also set wear offset 44 for all other > tools, and the behaviour would be identical to the current patch. > I agree the P4401 wakes great sense. If your going to change the format then maybe going to 444001 allows for many tools/offsets. It just depends on how close we want to follow other controls. We seem to like to follow Fanuc. Personally if we are going to not follow Fanuc then I wouldn't wantto have a compatibility option for G10 as you described. > How this would be handled in the tool editor remains to be decided, > but I would be thinking in terms of an "expand" triangle > > Otherwise, we could maintain a completely separate table of wear > offsets, and have a separate wear-offset editor. (or probably a > wear-offsets tab in the tool editor) > How it's handled in the GUI doesn't really matter - we can do anything as long as the info is available. > I prefer the "wear-offsets belong to a a tool" approach as it will > work rather better with conventional mill code. > Well that's the problem - not every machine is a mill. Linuxcnc supports all kinds of machines - some we haven't even though of yet :) > -- > atp > If you can't fix it, you don't own it. > http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto > Chris M ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
