Announcements
Attention for Customers without Multi-Factor Authentication or Single Sign-On - OTP Verification rolls out April 2025. Read all about it here.
jimMA3D3
577 Views, 14 Replies

Tool offset won't change when adjusting on control

Hi ,

 Machining a shaft and have added  a pass through M00( Measure) so I can adjust my finish cut if needed. I make my adjustments on machine control, cycle start. the  size still the same. I notice in the post it doesn't call the tool for the finish cycle. It starts where it left off. Is there  away to make you adjustment  then run finish cycle in the Step up in fusion 360.

seth.madore
in reply to: jimMA3D3

Could you share your file so we can see the workflow? Also, what machine is this and what post processor are you using?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
jimMA3D3
in reply to: seth.madore

I have Doosan 280LM with fanuc i series control. The post processor is a one from Fusions Library Puma.I had a colleague modify it to work. 

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

The finishing operation after the M00 stop is not set to the "In Control" option so therefore it is likely that the Post Processor is not outputting the "tool offset call", usually either a G41 or a G42, in your case it is likely to be a G42.

 

Without your specific Post Processor (I used the Doosan PP with Puma option) I may not have it exact but the image of the code shown in the second image does show that the "tool offset" is being "called" by the G42 line of code when the Finishing Operation is set to the "In Control" option, see images below.

Hope this is of some help :slightly_smiling_face:

Compensation set to "In Control" gives you code in second imageCompensation set to "In Control" gives you code in second image

 

Note the G42 line of codeNote the G42 line of code

 

jimMA3D3
in reply to: engineguy

Thanks for your help. Will give it a go. Have another one for you. I have collision in groove cycle on pulley.

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

That would likely be because the tool cutting sideways at full depth and full width in a single move which Grooving tools don`t like to do :disappointed_face:

Not likely that a 1mm tool would survive that move but you never know, what material?  :slightly_smiling_face:

 

However changing a few settings under the "Passes" tab as shown in the image below would make that Operation a lot easier on the Grooving tool, just a suggestion, it may look like an odd toolpath but should do a nice clean groove safely :slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face:

Hope this helps a little, that is the area to "play around in" for this stuff, modified file attached :slightly_smiling_face:

Bagger belt pulley.jpg

 

jimMA3D3
in reply to: engineguy

Thankyou for your help. Changed the finish cycle to control on the bagger pulley it changed to G41 not G42. Would it because internal machining vs External machining?

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

Yes, G41 for Internal would sound correct :slightly_smiling_face:

Without a copy of your Modified Post Processor I am not able to post the exact same code as you :slightly_smiling_face:

jimMA3D3
in reply to: engineguy

Have attached modified post.

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

You have uploaded the Fusion f3d file again which still has the Red Collision in the simulation.

 

Have you not tested the last Fusion file that I uploaded for you ??

 

What you need to attach is the Post Processor .cps file from your Post Processor Library.

jimMA3D3
in reply to: engineguy

Sorry about that. Have attached post.

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

That is just the G code file, which doesn`t have the offset call BTW.

 

The actual Post Processor from your Post Processor Library that you are using please :slightly_smiling_face: the .cps file.

jimMA3D3
in reply to: engineguy

Hi engineguy,

A colleague of mine modified the post processor. Not sure how to send you what you require. Could you show the steps how to do this?

jimMA3D3
in reply to: jimMA3D3

Hi ,

I think I found what you require.

engineguy
in reply to: jimMA3D3

@jimMA3D3 

 

OK, that Post Processor seems to be producing good code so test it out carefully at the machine :slightly_smiling_face: :slightly_smiling_face: