Request for X+ and X- radio buttons on section Tool setup tab for lathe

[ubunibme]

Some of us have gang style lathes and cut on both sides of X0. As it stands the only way, I know, for the post to differentiate would be to give the tool a sudo turret number, which implies it cuts on X+. As you know, depending on which side the cutting is being done you have different calculations for X, G2, G3, and I values. Would be more explicit if you had a couple of radio buttons, if it's a lathe tool.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

adamvs99 wrote:

Some of us have gang style lathes and cut on both sides of X0. As it stands the only way, I know, for the post to differentiate would be to give the tool a sudo turret number, which implies it cuts on X+. As you know, depending on which side the cutting is being done you have different calculations for X, G2, G3, and I values. Would be more explicit if you had a couple of radio buttons, if it's a lathe tool.

This would of course be a lot trickier than it sounds but needed for correct multi-turret simulation for the future anyways.

[ubunibme]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:

adamvs99 wrote: Some of us have gang style lathes and cut on both sides of X0. As it stands the only way, I know, for the post to differentiate would be to give the tool a sudo turret number, which implies it cuts on X+. As you know, depending on which side the cutting is being done you have different calculations for X, G2, G3, and I values. Would be more explicit if you had a couple of radio buttons, if it's a lathe tool. This would of course be a lot trickier than it sounds but needed for correct multi-turret simulation for the future anyways.

OK, but, how tricky can it be? Add a few radio buttons and a tool property, maybe a tooltip or two .. it's adds it doesn't change anything, it's really for the post writers. The Ui is so intuitive it doesn't really need much documentation. Just saying.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

adamvs99 wrote:
OK, but, how tricky can it be? Add a few radio buttons and a tool property, maybe a tooltip or two .. it's adds it doesn't change anything, it's really for the post writers. The Ui is so intuitive it doesn't really need much documentation. Just saying.

Well, actually if this is made I'm pretty sure that they don't want to handle it in the post. So the toolpath would be on the other side of the part. Since making buttons that don't do anything expect for the few post experts out there isn't really usefull is it?

[scottmoyse]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
Since making buttons that don't do anything expect for the few post experts out there isn't really usefull is it?

There's already a lot of that in certain places in the product. So yeah... we don't want more.

[jeff.walters]

Just FYI

There hasn’t been a decision made on the details yet BUT I have been talking to development about this issue.

[Rob_Lockwood]

If it's all done correctly, the system see's that, in the machine assembly, the tool is upside down and alters the output accordingly. This takes care of it not just for upside down cutting tools, but also b-axis indexed cutting tools, cutting  tools working on both main and sub.. I hope the turning dev is thinking about the big picture, or you'll wind up painted into a corner again.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying X+, X- can be inferred by tool orientation and spindle direction. Such that: CCW with face down tool = X+ ; CW with face up toll = X-. Except it rotates the tool, it does't turn it upside down.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

adamvs wrote:
Are you saying X+, X- can be inferred by tool orientation and spindle direction. Such that: CCW with face down tool = X+ ; CW with face up toll = X-. Except it rotates the tool, it does't turn it upside down.

With it being and left or right hand tool, the orientation and the rotational direction should be enough to know how it's set-up.

[Anonymous]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
With it being and left or right hand tool, the orientation and the rotational direction should be enough to know how it's set-up.

I see where you are with this, but handed and orientation are two different things, handed is what features the tool will cut, frontside or backside, right. If you take a right handed tool cutting toward the headstock on the X- side, CCW, invert it , cutting X+ side toward the headstock, CCW, it's still the same tool. Besides you can't take a tool which is RH, CCW spindle, 0 orientation, and flip it to LH, CW spindle, 180 orientation. The software won't generate a tool path, though I'm thinking you're saying those are the same tool on the opposite side of X0. Problem also is you need to define two tools that are the same, A RH version and LH version.

Forget the radio buttons, what if you would add a check box "Inverted", you would have it.

[scottmoyse]

People are successfully programming gang tool lathes, with tools on both sides of the spindle. One example is Brad from tactical keychains. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to achieve, what you are asking for is already possible.

[ubunibme]

scottmoyse wrote:
People are successfully programming gang tool lathes, with tools on both sides of the spindle. One example is Brad from tactical keychains. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to achieve, what you are asking for is already possible.

Scott, I hear you and I, also, can program the Tormach to cut on both side of X0. But I have to use a kludge: use a turret number for the tool to indicate it's cutting X+. Here's the deal: from the CAM point of view it doesn't matter which side the cutting's being done because the profile is the same either way; but from the post's point of view it does because X will have a different sign, and G2, G3, and I values need to be calculated differently. With the radio buttons ( or check box ), there would be an explicit property the post could use to determine this. Is this the general case?.. not sure. It seems there's some doubt about that, but I'm not seeing a clean way to get that info.

[scottmoyse]

Ok. Gotcha. Fair enough.