Fanuc OT Post
- Thread starter T_Dubs
- Start date
Hello T_Duds,
I'm not really following your explanation with regards to facing the work-piece, be it a lathe or mill project. Logically, the part drawing and Z Zero of the part should relate. If there is 0.050 stock to remove from the face of the part to get to Z Zero (Mill or Lathe), then the surface of the un-machined blank is 0.050, not Zero.
As far as drawing the part and creating the program using a CAM system, you would draw the part using whatever is logical as the Z Zero, either end of the part, but most commonly the Z+ end of the part when using a lathe. Most CAM Systems will have a setup page for describing the Blank Material size and this is mainly for safe standoff of the tool when approaching the part and for simulation before Post Processing to create the CNC program code.
When setting the Z Work-shift Offset for a particular job in the lathe, if there is 0.050 material to remove from the face of the work-piece, then the setting tool is touched off on the end of the work-piece and the Work-shift Offset set using Z0.05 as the current position, not Z Zero. If you can't do that and only know how to touch the end of the work as if it's Z Zero, you can easily work around that by doing the following:
1. Touch setting tool on end of work-piece
2. Have the Relative Position page of the Control display and set the Z display to Zero
3. Move the Tool clear of the work-piece in X and Z, then move the tool in Z to Z-0.05, using the Relative Position display as your guide.
5. The tool will now be aligned with where Z Zero on the work-piece is and the Z Work-shift can be set to that point.
Regards,
Bill
Hello T_Duds,
Of course there is a reason to set the Z Zero on the work-piece and not the top of the material. For starters, it makes the program a lot more relatable to the work-piece drawing and therefore, easier for some poor schmuck that may have to follow you and read your program. If, for example, the drawing shows the bottom of a bore being 50.25mm from the top of the work-piece, you won't easily find that in the program, for the programmed coordinate in Z will be the -50.25 plus whatever amount of material there was between the top surface of the blank material and the finished face of the work-piece.
When creating the drawing in a CAM System you would have to know before commencing, the amount of material that will be between the top of the material blank and the finished surface of the work-piece. What if only the top side of the work-piece is machined to bring the part to the correct thickness and the material supplied is thicker than the batch supplied the first time you made this part? Do you still touch off on the top of the material and call it Z Zero?
Habits formed early tend to persevere. It seems to me that you're new to this game and you're cultivation poor practices.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
I see your logic and in no way disagree. You are correct, I am very new to this. My first CNC VMC and lathe have happened in the last 6 months with absolutely zero experience/exposure to any sort of programming whatsoever. I wholeheartedly agree that I have likely developed poor practices. I only know what I learn from reading and randomly hitting buttons on the machine until something happens. I appreciate your time and advice you have given, it makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
alphonso
Well-known member
Very seldom, if ever, program Fanuc at the control. Maybe that comes from starting with GE 1050HL with one line display.
Fagor 8055t and despised Anilam 1200t are fairly easy to program at control, BUT, they do not have the ability to program in the background, so there is no real advantage to "at the control" programming for me. (standing around , waiting for 3 hour program to finish before I can write a program just doesn't seem very efficient. )
Fagor 8055t and despised Anilam 1200t are fairly easy to program at control, BUT, they do not have the ability to program in the background, so there is no real advantage to "at the control" programming for me. (standing around , waiting for 3 hour program to finish before I can write a program just doesn't seem very efficient. )
Booze Daily
Active member
I don’t know. All the 2 axis lathes I’ve run, I always finger bang the program in. If it has a unusual profile I might draw it in CAD to get endpoints. Takes maybe 10 minutes?
I've lathe programmed "at the control" my whole career but I ain't physically typed shit in line by line in 25 years. I 99% of the time took "at the control" as a figure of speech meaning not conversational or cam programming. I'm all G-code and canned cycles, written sitting in a easy chair at the computer, transferred via RS232 cable to the machine. Only reason I'd stand at the control and type shit in today is if I couldn't send or recieve.
Brent
Brent
Last edited:
Hello Brent,
I wouldn't call that programming at the control, but creating the program with a computer, either via a CAM system or out of one's head is the way the majority do it. The Qwerty keyboard coupled with basic editor software is profoundly more convenient than the keypad of a Fanuc and most other controls; Okuma probably being the most friendly.
Regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
Well I suppose technically that is correct. Hard to believe folks in 2021 would chose to type programs in line by line regardless of how they write code. My dyslexic ass would spend all day back spacing fixing mistakes. Eliminating the finger bang mistakes would be of upmost importance to me. I am nervous enough as it is.
When I had to physically type in the programs I was stuck on third shift locked out of where the office computers were. Albeit not impossible, some of my lathe programs do get lengthy at times. If you are someone physically standing at the control typing in each individual code well I'm here to tell ya there's a different way. Find a old Windows box with RS232 communications cable hookups, download a free transfer program, and go to town. You'll never type in another program again. I still finger bang but it ain't never at work.
Brent
I think this got a little off topic with debating programming at the control, etc. but I think I found what I was looking for and maybe it will help someone else that is new like me.
Searching through the Autodesk website looking for info about post processors, they suggested watching this video John Saunders made. It seems pretty simple to edit and save your own tweaked post processor where I can have it not post the G codes I don't want so I don't have to mess around deleting things I don't want on every program.
Searching through the Autodesk website looking for info about post processors, they suggested watching this video John Saunders made. It seems pretty simple to edit and save your own tweaked post processor where I can have it not post the G codes I don't want so I don't have to mess around deleting things I don't want on every program.
Mud
Well-known member
Have you dug into the training guide for the editor? Link - https://cam.autodesk.com/posts/posts/guides/Post Processor Training Guide.pdf
I'm not a code writer so it was pretty obtuse for me at the start, but it eventually made sense. I discovered there's a symmetry to the indentations of the various code parts/paragraphs which makes sense, that's how clueless I am, and I still managed to build 2 posts from samples. The moderators on the HSM post forum are very sharp and very helpful.
If you haven't found it yet - https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-post-processor-forum/bd-p/218
I'm not a code writer so it was pretty obtuse for me at the start, but it eventually made sense. I discovered there's a symmetry to the indentations of the various code parts/paragraphs which makes sense, that's how clueless I am, and I still managed to build 2 posts from samples. The moderators on the HSM post forum are very sharp and very helpful.
If you haven't found it yet - https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-post-processor-forum/bd-p/218