Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Mill pocket diagonally with machine control compensation G17 must not be activated during radius compensation. An error occurs. G17 before radius compensation is ok.
@fantdkp, and @L_shaver_6167 As we don not have an Integrex but we do have a Nexus 2oo MY. I have only used the Integrex post and modified it then the new posts wasn't been released yet. So unfortunately cannot pass any judgments on the Integrex post as for the new Mazak posts will try the one for the 200MY as soon as I can but doesn't look as if it is going to be anytime soon.
@AchimN has shared a Intgrex post in this thread and as for the turning only it worked fine on the 200 MY just could not get the milling. Had to disable the B axis etc in postprocessor.
Basic question: Is this post (42854 7/14/2020) supposed to pass the benchmark (sample 'MillTurn_MM' 2/6/19)?
----- the software is Fusion 360. I set the 'Setup -> Machine' to 'Autodesk Generic Mill-Turn Lathe'. -----
When I tried only 'primary spindle' (the first half),
(1) Actions -> Simulate fails on: primary spindle -> turning 2 axis -> Turning Profile with compensation when 'Stop on collision' is checked. (in two places)
(2) Actions -> Post Process fails on: all 'Stop boring', 'Fine boring' and 'Back Boring' operations (3 x 3 = 9). (When I suppress these 9 oprations, it generates a post successfully).
----- Example of Error log (the first 'Stop boring') (C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\Fusion360CAM\1\bench.log)
[...] Warning: Turret has not been specified. Using Turret 1 as default.
############################################################################### Error: Unsupported spindle start command. Error in operation: 'Stop boring' Failed while processing onCycle() for record 384. ###############################################################################
############################################################################### Error: Unknown machineState. Error at line: 3129 Error in operation: 'Stop boring' Failed while processing onLinear() for record 384. ###############################################################################
Error: Failed to invoke function 'onClose'. Error: Failed to invoke 'onClose' in the post configuration. Error: Failed to execute configuration. Stop time: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:04:18 AM Post processing failed.
I'm glad to see that this post processor is still being developed and improved as of September, 2020.
We just purchased a gently used Integrex IV-ST and will use this post as a starting point for customization.
That said, it seems to me that complex machines like the Integrex need a complementary .machine definition file, so things like lower turrets can be specified.
Or, perhaps, there should be (maybe there already is) a way to select the lower turret based on the tool selection?
Thank you for the prompt reply! I've looked in the past and just looked again, but I can't figure out how to specify the lower turret in a tool definition.
That's the thing about posts and machines. They're all different. And Mazak are notorious. They can have two identical machines with totally different parameters in the control requiring different posts.
The implementation in the generic mazak post is valid for more recent machines
@scottmoyse, "That's the thing about posts and machines. They're all different. And Mazak are notorious."
That's what we're finding out! This is our first Mazak and it's an Integrex with a lower turret, no less...
That said, I'm seeing a path to using our Inventor CAM Ultimate as an effective tool with this complex CNC. For years we have employed the use of subroutines in our NC code to accommodate more complex jobs requiring multiple setups on simpler machine tools, and I see no reason not to do the same with a "Done in One" setup machine, like the Integrex.
Break the complex job into simple, individual tasks.
That requires some hand coding to assemble the subroutines, but that usually works best for our production parts for which programs might be used for years. (It's easier to fix a problem in one section of code or deal with a broken tool, etc.)
I've looked into CAM packages, like Esprit... Although Esprit is appealing, the $50-60k price tag is a turnoff, and I'm hearing it can takes months to get comfortable with. To me, it's worth investing some time trying to make Inventor CAM work with these complex machines.
Our Matrix control uses a different tool call-out syntax for the upper versus lower turret.
Upper is conventional plus the optional use of parameters. (e.g. T12 M6 works)
To change a lower turret tool, a tool change block looks like this: T0003000
It would be easy to change the post to accommodate that distinction in the post if there was a field or a box to check in the tool library dialog, perhaps in the setup tab.
Is it possible to modify the Tool Library dialogs?
Or it's wrong for your machine but not others. All these machines are configured differently. Kind Regards Scott Moyse Manufacturing Technical Specialist Autodesk Expert Elite P: +64 9 302 4028 M: +64 21 055 7775 [email protected]
CADPRO Systems Ltd Auckland - 527b Rosebank Road, Avondale Auckland Christchurch - Unit 3, Kendal Avenue, Burnside New Zealand
But that would be new to me now, which is programmed, for example, a hole on the main spindle with C0 and on the secondary spindle with C180. But you learn every day. Thank you
