Okuma L250 G95 giving me fits...

[Protohawk]

I can't for the life of me figure out what is going wrong.  I've found every solved issue thread in the forums and added/removed code for like ten hours now and I simply cannot get this post processor to use G95 for drilling cycles.

The issue is made worse by the fact that I can't use the Visual Studio Code drilling cycle tests because this post rejects them for being "milling cycles."  I can't figure out how to edit those .cnc files to make them work, either.  So I have to keep going into Fusion and post processing from there.  Makes debugging much slower!

[BrandonTBFBF]

Try the attached.

[Protohawk]

Thank you for the reply!

I'm getting an identical G94 output with that change; verified with drilling, chipbreaking, and deep drilling cycles.

I am also still fighting a NaN return on my barfeeder stock length and number of parts calculation that works on my other post with identical logic but slightly different way of setting up the user-defined properties.  That one isn't too big of a deal since it is at the beginning of the program and I can just change it myself easily enough.

I've never had this much trouble with changes so I'm thinking it may stem from the way the Okuma stock post handled something in the Properties section.

[BrandonTBFBF]

Do you have the "Use Feed Per Rev" box checked?

I have it outputting G95 for me.

Try adding an output format to your barfeeder stock length. Like spatialFormat.format(properties.barPullerStockLength);

[Protohawk]

I do have the "use feed per rev" checked on the tool tab of the toolpath popup box, yes.

I tried playing around with where to insert that format but I'll have to head back to the post manual to see if I can figure out where it goes.

Thanks again!

[BrandonTBFBF]

Can you attach a file?

[Protohawk]

Well I figured out the G95 issue at least; when I updated the post in my assets folder the actual post processing popup was still using an older version until I manually deleted it from the list.  I've had this happen before and should have caught it.

Still fighting with the NaN return.  I mean, the logic is identical between my two post processors as far as I can tell and one returns the calculated number and one gives the error.  Low priority for now, thanks again for your help!

[BrandonTBFBF · Accepted solution]

Change line 557 to this:

var stockLength = getProperty("barPullerStockLength");

[Protohawk]

That did it.  It must be the difference in the syntax of the properties between the two posts somehow.

Much appreciated, now to go make some parts on my new lathe!