Announcements
Attention for Customers without Multi-Factor Authentication or Single Sign-On - OTP Verification rolls out April 2025. Read all about it here.
rhdfmail
1399 Views, 10 Replies

Heidenhain 3+2 and 5 axis OP

Just notced a bad thing.
I have a OP with the table tilted B 90 C180
Next I have a swarf. 
BUT the problem is that it wants to slam down way below my part since it seems that the post doesnt realize that the plane is tilted 

If I add a "dummy" op that forces the table to go to B0 C0 it works, also if I only post the swarf-op (since the program always starts with B0 C0)


Any clues what's wrong? I suspect its the post that has some strangeness somewhere

phil.lewis_bham
in reply to: rhdfmail

Hi @rhdfmail

Could you share the .cps post file that is causing this issue please?



Phil.L

CAM Support Engineer
rhdfmail
in reply to: rhdfmail

This is the post I use. Its basicly the standard heidenhain-post with some minor modifications.
There is some other issues with this post, that i suspect has the same source. If I use Plane Spatial instead of Cycle 19 I get the same result. 

BUT. I have used this post for 5-axis ops before with the diference that the previous OP was oriented in B0 C0 

 

phil.lewis_bham
in reply to: rhdfmail

Thanks for supplying the post.
This issue could be handled by getting the post to add L B+0 C+0 FMAX M94 after every L M140 MB MAX to reset the rotary axes after the main Z retract. Please let me know if you would like to add this to the post?

 

For a more permanent solution I will need to bring this situation to the attention of development.



Phil.L

CAM Support Engineer
rhdfmail
in reply to: phil.lewis_bham

That is a solution, or rather a hack to make sure I'm not crashing the machine.

It  is basicly what I do now with a "dummy" operation to reset the axis just before my 2 swarf-operations. But it is there for ALL operations wich vill be annoying when doing multiple operations on the same side of a part and it resets the axis for all of them (or at least all of them when switching tool)

Odd that nobody else seems to have noticed this rather serious issue

 

phil.lewis_bham
in reply to: rhdfmail

Yes, I would agree the solution offered is not ideal.
Would it be possible to share the .f3d project file and the output NC file that show this issue please?


Phil.L

CAM Support Engineer
rhdfmail
in reply to: phil.lewis_bham

Project-file and generated NC code (saved as txt since the forum didn't like .h files)

phil.lewis_bham
in reply to: rhdfmail

I've been reviewing this issue further and have now logged a ticket to the post processor team.



Phil.L

CAM Support Engineer
AchimN
in reply to: rhdfmail

@rhdfmail Thanks for your feedback.
The issue you reported will be fixed with the next update of the heidenhain post processor which will show up on the post library within the next few days.

The main reason for the issue you see is that the postprocessor does not fully support machine configurations.

As a quick fix, you could define your kinematics inside of your postprocessor as explained here:
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-post-processor-forum/how-to-set-up-a-4-5-axis-machine-configurati...

By looking into the machine configuration you defined into fusion, your machine config should then look similar to this:

  } else if (true) {
    // NOTE: setup your machine here
    // var aAxis = createAxis({coordinate:0, table:true, axis:[1, 0, 0], range:[-120.0001, 120.0001], preference: getProperty("preferTilt")});
    var bAxis = createAxis({coordinate:1, table:true, axis:[0, 1, 0], range:[-120.0001, 45.0001], preference:-1});
    var cAxis = createAxis({coordinate:2, table:true, axis:[0, 0, 1], range:[0, 360], cyclic:true});
    machineConfiguration = new MachineConfiguration(bAxis, cAxis);

    setMachineConfiguration(machineConfiguration);
    optimizeMachineAngles2(0); // using M128 mode

 

You will then also notice that the post processor will output real machine angles rather than vectors.
Please test carefully.



Achim.N
Principal Technology Consultant
rhdfmail
in reply to: AchimN

Great news.

I had some suspicion that there was some bug/error with the linkage between machine-config and postprocessor

I will wait for the next update and do some testing on it

AchimN
in reply to: rhdfmail

@rhdfmail FYI, the updated heidenhain post is now available on the post library: https://cam.autodesk.com/hsmposts?p=heidenhain

 

Please let us know if that solves the problem for you.



Achim.N
Principal Technology Consultant