I request that AutodeskHSM has sample posts for FANUC, OSP and MAZAK.

[Anonymous]

I request that AutodeskHSM has sample posts for FANUC, OSP and MAZAK.
Autodesk stuff introduced sample posts.
But almost of all is for Haas.
If Autodesk stuff tells me to modify them and to make posts for FANUC, OSP and MAZAK, it is too difficult to do.
Now I supply the Mill/Turn customer two posts which are 5 axis Mill post and Turning post.
But in this case, the customer can’t gnerate one NC data with Mill and Turning tool paths.
I request that AutodeskHSM has sample posts for FANUC, OSP and MAZAK as same as 3 axis.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Anonymous

The problem with these posts is that what works for one machine doesn't work for the other.

So many variables in how the control is set-up.

And what you are saying it is really difficult to do this. For the Post guys as well, but it's doable since we've got Fanuc mill-turn machine from before there was a Generic Doosan Fanuc Mill-turn post.

Mill-turn for Doosan with Fanuc can be found here: http://cam.autodesk.com/posts/?p=doosan_mill-turn_fanuc

I'm pretty sure one for Mazak is in the works.

[ArjanDijk]

Are you a reseller? Then this is something you can offer as a service. I created a dozen postprocessors for millturnmachines, but the only ones that could be reused are the Haas ones.

I even have a rather complex post for Mazak Integrex which is only directly usable for the Smooth control and the only for a certain configuration, so even in the same Brand/series the needed code can be different for different models/generations. 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for some replies.

I am reseller.

I confirmed that Doosan post is on the web.

But Doosan isn't famous in Japan even if Doosan has Fanuc controller.

In Japan, Makino, Yasuda and etc are famous.

In the case of Fanuc, I want posts for Makino, Yasuda and etc.  

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Anonymous

I want a lot too but that's just not how it works.

[Greg_Haisley]

There needs to be specific Mazak posts that also have the machine parameter comments about settings required for the controller to behave correctly. For example using cutter compensation has to have EIA parameter set to use cutter compensation from the EIA tool offset table on the controller. Also you have to have the tool length set correctly. Failure to do this will mean the operator can't control size via the tool offset page.

Another issue with Mazaks is the different tool changer types used on different machine models. Some use the old lazy susan style while others use the ready arm style. The post must have the correct setting for use ready arm (yes or no).

Then you have the G20 inch setting by default in the Fanuc style posts. Mazak doesn't need this inch G-code (G20) and will probably puck if it sees it. Yet another issue is the tool call using the (M6) again Mazak doesn't like it and will probably say M code mismatch error.

Yet one more post issue - there needs to be a setting for Tape mode. If the user posts a large file and is planning on running the file in tape mode (drip feeding) then the end of file needs to be M02 not M30. Failure to do this will mean that the controller will try to reset the program in tape mode which is impossible. The control will hang up and the only way to reset is to power down the control or remove the RS-232 cable and reset the control then re attach the cable. Been there and done that.

Here is another issue - tapping on a Mazak requires a G95 before calling up a tapping cycle (G84), the tapping cycle needs the feed rate to be the tap pitch (.0312 for a 10-32 tap for example). Then after the G80 a G94 needs to be inserted back into the program.

These are issues I know about while posting an EIA file to run on a Mazak. There may be more.

Someone in the post processor department should review and modify posts to be specific per Mazak machine model. This would save a lot of frustration for the user involved. Trust me - I have M32, M+, and the Fusion Mazak mill controllers in my shop. 

I'll track down the CNC controller parameter settings we use per control version later and post to the post processor forum.

Thanks for looking

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Greg_Haisley

My comments were in the light of a reseller complaining that it's too difficult to modify a post.

I would agree more generic posts would be awesome, but I also do understand how hard that is to do.

[al.whatmough]

I am archiving this idea as it is far too generic.  

However, there is some great point made in this conversation.

At the end of the day, there are two things

1) We will continue to add to the library of stock posts.

2) There will also be a need for customisations.