Hi Steve, You sent me that EMC2 post for Featurecam a while back and that is working out fine. Thanks.
I ran into an unexpected problem with Featurecam the other day. We installed another copy on my customers machine and when we moved the .fm file from one machine to another, in one case it totally trashed the tool table. I didn't even realize it until the lathe that was running the code did a tool change to an empty turret position and then since all off the offsets were zero the machine fortunately stopped. Have you had any problems moving Featurecam files from machine to machine? I haven't checked out the Featurecam website yet, but I was really surprised when this happened late last week. Other than that, Featurecam has been working great. Dave On 3/14/2010 9:01 PM, Steve Blackmore wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:59:40 -0500, you wrote: > > >> If the existing robot control already works, then there is no sense in >> trying to control that with EMC2 directly. >> >> I'd tie EMC2 together with the robot controls via digital I/O, or the >> Modbus interface via Classic Ladder. The interface should be pretty >> simple and consist of just a few handshake lines. >> >> Lathe Output -> Ready to load -> Robot input >> Robot output -> Release Chuck -> Lathe input >> Lathe output -> Chuck Released -> Robot input >> Robot output -> Part ready to chuck -> Lathe input >> Lathe output -> Chuck clamped -> Robot input >> Robot output -> Robot clear of lathe -> Lathe input >> Lathe output -> Lathe busy -> Robot input >> > I'd agree with Dave here. > > >>> Request for a price quote from a potential client ended with a >>> revelation to me that i have to find a way to decrease the production >>> cost and that involves also reduction of labor time. >>> > You're right in my bread and butter zone here<G> > > Firstly I'd look at the lathe code, see if it can be improved on, then > look at the feeds/speeds and tooling and see if that can be improved > within the capabilities of the machine. The crossing point for > production speed to cost is the secret. It's sometimes more cost > effective to run slower and tooling last longer than to run flat out > with increased tool/machine wear and more frequent insert replacement. > > Any good CAM program should be able to optimise the code, but I still > find I can shave a little off any CAM programs job times manually. > Whether they can recoup my charge for doing that within their job cycle > lifetime is their problem ;) > > Steve Blackmore > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Emc-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
