Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

On 3 July 2017 at 00:56, wrote: > > I have been playing with G41, G42 trying to understand what the $%%@ cutter > compensation means on a lathe. It attempts to keep the insert tip tangential to the programmed path. (You can see this quite nicely in the sim, if you make the tool

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

I would expect compensation to be on or off period (that is, not PER axis). I am curious why you expect it to look that way. Why would you expect the first move to position itself one cutter diameter lower than where the cut should be? We are using a NGCGUI routine that was written by

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

The motion I see in the link looks like I would expect it to look. Are you expecting cutter comp on just the X axis or just the Z axis or both X and Z? On Jul 2, 2017 5:12 PM, wrote: > I admit that compensation confuses me on a lathe. I have no idea if it is > cancelling or

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

I admit that compensation confuses me on a lathe. I have no idea if it is cancelling or changing - but why would it change? There is a single G42 at the beginning of the routine. The routine is simply cutting a taper (as can be seen by the steeper lines in the back plot) starting at

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

Are you sure it is cancelling cutter comp or is it changing cutter comp to the other side of the programmed path? On Jul 2, 2017 4:50 PM, wrote: Yes, I do see different results, the line becomes horizontal rather than angled. But my question is, why when cutter compensation IS

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

Yes, I do see different results, the line becomes horizontal rather than angled. But my question is, why when cutter compensation IS on, are the moves treated differently. By the way, even if we change the first G0 to a G1, we still get the angled line. So, it isn’t G0 vs G1, it is simply

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

You SHOULD see different results. On Jul 2, 2017 3:46 PM, wrote: > I don’t disagree but am failing to see the connection to my question…? > -Tom > > > On Jul 2, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > > > It has always been my experience G40 cancels

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

I don’t disagree but am failing to see the connection to my question…? -Tom > On Jul 2, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > > It has always been my experience G40 cancels cutter compensation. > > On Jul 2, 2017 2:44 PM, wrote: > > Why would G0 to a

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1

It has always been my experience G40 cancels cutter compensation. On Jul 2, 2017 2:44 PM, wrote: Why would G0 to a given location in one axis (X) differ such that a G1 movement in another axis (Z) causes the first axis to move? Let me explain... Attached is a screenshot of the

[Emc-users] G0 vs G1

Why would G0 to a given location in one axis (X) differ such that a G1 movement in another axis (Z) causes the first axis to move? Let me explain... Attached is a screenshot of the back plot from Axis: http://bgp.nu/~tom/pub/G0G1.png The highlighted line is "G0 X#" However, if you look at

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

> On the MPG on my machines I use ilowpass to smooth the output of the jog > wheel before sending it to LinuxCNC. In addition to the userspace module for the xhc-hb04 pendant, LinuxCNC provides helper scripts that provide two ways to smooth stepped motion requested by an xhc-hb04 pendant. Usage

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

On 27 June 2016 at 17:00, wrote: > Can the acceleration be changed dynamically through HAL and still work > properly? I don't think that the system even looks at the acceleration pins when the machine is running G-code. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

Can the acceleration be changed dynamically through HAL and still work properly? Because say the traj planner looks 10 moves ahead, and it's 2x G1 followed by 3x G0 moves then 5x G1. It forms a plan based on the acceleration rules. But when it hits the 3rd command, the HAL suddenly changes

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

On 06/27/2016 09:09 AM, dan...@austin.rr.com wrote: > Is there any HAL component that can tell if it's running as G0 or G1? The pin motion.motion-type, described here: http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/man/man9/motion.9.html "traverse" (1) is a G0, "linear feed" (2) is a G1, and "arc feed" (3) is

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

On 06/27/2016 02:41 AM, Danny Miller wrote: > In a similar thread, I'm doing 3D carving with some aggressive > acceleration profiles. The XHC mpg is SUPER rough when stepping around, > it's supposed to allow you to use different accelerations for mpg > inputs, but none of that section has ever

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

Hmm, interesting, but that's only to reduce accel in manual mode, right? It'd reduce shaking while using the mpg, but the G0 moves in the g-code would create motor stalls if used at full speed. I'm wondering if all G0 and manual input could be a mode of higher speed but more limited in

Re: [Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

On 27 June 2016 at 09:41, Danny Miller wrote: > > So, is there a way to have RAPID_ACCELERATION (for G0 alone) as a > separate thing from MAX_ACCELERATION for the axes, used for G1 motion? Possibly. There are HAL pins to control acceleration. However they are not read

[Emc-users] G0 vs G1-specific functions?

Two-parter here: I was looking over another carving job on the preview window and realized there's really no way to tell where the work is. That is, we go up to Z=2" for the start/end coords, but I need to know where the carving itself starts. It's shown in a different color because it's all