Not sure what is going on exactly but I believe some what of a bit of downsizing going on with OnCNE, Talked to Craig today (he was the fellow from which I purchased my OneCNCXP, his office was out of Detroit, as I understand it the Detroit office is now shut down. Both Craig and Rob were let go. The dismissal was quite sudden. Job security is pretty much a thing of the past unfortunately. Of course they may take the easy road of self employment, where every day is fun and filled with song and dance and never any worries, no bosses to ignore and take advantage of you, That is of course unless you want to count everyone that call on the phone or walks through the door, and you enjoy working 60 or more hours a week for peanuts. My favorite four words are “Is it done ……… YET!” On the serious side Craig and Rob seemed like very dependable guys and I am sure this may be just an opportunity for them.

Sorry to hear that.

It is certainly not a contraction, but a service oriented decision.

It is OneCNC's aim to provide our customers with the highest level of service possible, before and after they become a customer. It is felt that individuals with the broadest knowledge of surface and solids CAD/CAM and 3D machining are the ideal and are currently being chosen from a broad recruitment base.

Interested individuals are welcome to contact our office: (877) 626-1262.


Michael Reyes
OneCNC LLC
Tel (877) 626-1262
Fax (727) 446-0042
www.onecnc.com

I tell you what, these few guy's on here talking and sharing what they have learned using Onecnc sure has lead me in the direction to buy it. Because of this great forum I have learned so much about your product. I'm glad to see you come here to help out to and lend support too.

.

SRT, does your
DITTO
mean you also Love cnc machining? We just have to know! :D

I guess I better "try" to be more exact in the future.
The DITTO does "NOT" include the "I love cnc machining" part in the previous post. I'm going with Onecnc, I hope it can also help me with indexing parts around on a rotary (SRT=servo rotary table), but I haven't heard you or wms, or cruncher, or anyone, mention your familiarity with onecnc helping in solids with this, but I figure it has to be better than what I have (V18), & cheaper than what I can't afford (MC9), can anyone donate any info on this. Thanks!

SRT, can you elaborate a bit more? Are you wanting actual 4th axis conversions?

I haven't seen the 4th axis wrap module option that is described in the writeup here, but you can always ask them about it:

http://onecnc.com/products_mill_prof.htm

Originally posted by SRT
I guess I better "try" to be more exact in the future.
The DITTO does "NOT" include the "I love cnc machining" part in the previous post. I'm going with Onecnc, I hope it can also help me with indexing parts around on a rotary (SRT=servo rotary table), but I haven't heard you or wms, or cruncher, or anyone, mention your familiarity with onecnc helping in solids with this, but I figure it has to be better than what I have (V18), & cheaper than what I can't afford (MC9), can anyone donate any info on this. Thanks!


SRT,

Glad your making the jump to OneCNC. I truly believe you will be very happy.

I don't do alot of 4 axis stuff other than just plain indexing. I take it from your post that is what you are interested in doing also.

The way I would approach a 4 axis part would be to "model" the part with the center line of the part at the center line of my rotary table, then index the part, (ie: rotate the model and table) to my first position and perform the nessasary tool operations. Then index my part, (again rotate the model and maybe some custom nc code to rotate the rotary table) and do my next operations. And so on and so forth (always wanted to say that).

It's really is not nessasary with a soild model to convert any of the code to 4 axis if all you are doing is indexing the table to work different sides of the part. All you need to do in "index your cad model and then preform your tool operations, reindex your model and do side 2, ect....

If you have a specific problem or question, let'er rip! and someone here will surely help you out. Remember We like new challenges.

Mill Pro 2000 has 4 axis conversion as an option.
This allows you to convert 3 axis code to "wrap" around a 4th axis. Lettering and regular code can be converted.

And I'm told that there will be an 4 axis conversion option for XP series at some point. Although at this time I'm not sure what exactly the 4 axis stuff will be for XP. It may be more powerful than the 2000 series stuff, but I'm only guessing at this point. The guys at OneCNC are always making things better, so my guess is that the new 4 axis stuff for XP series will also be miles ahead of previous stuff.

Hu & WMS,
Simple indexing will be all that I will be doing at this time. I asked sales about the improvement on the wrap method as now being used by their Mill Pro 2000, and I believe they said that will be upgraded after they finish Lathe improvements they are now working on. Yes I believe they are moving forward much better than my previous experience has been with my other software provider. One of the questions that I will be addressing is the rotation process of the model, at the present time, I use different Z offset values (per Haas tech support advice) on all 4 sides because of non symetrical features about the centerline of the rotary C/L. That way I can make individual adjustments easily. I am trying to determine the best way to inprove on this "if possible" to establish Z zero on the 4 different sides using a model which may need to be altered slightly for different parts.

SRT, if you have enough work offsets (Starting at G54 perhaps?) available, I think that would be the best way to do your Z offsets for each of the sides (I suppose there could be more than 4 sides). This way, you do not have to fool with tool offsets, set 'em and forget 'em ;)

SRT,
The way I do the z offsets,(and this is not to say it's the only way or even the proper way), Is to use a know feature on the Rotary table or the fixture, and incorperate that feature into my drawing. Then if that fixure is used for more than one part or if the part is a "family" of parts then I have something to tie every thing to.
If you use the centerline of the table, in Y, and some feature say the fixture face or even the face of the table platter, for X. Then you could use the centerline of the table in Z. Then you create your model at a known location, in relation to those above.

I don't quite understand why you want to use different Z offsets for each side , but I don't have your part in my hand.

You do know that on a Haas control you can change your Z offset with G10 inside the program? This is handy to "tweek" in only one part of the program.

All the features on your part WILL rotate around the centerline of your table. So if you use that as your c/l of your model then you will always be "in sync".

As always if I am missing something "SET" me staight, if your think you can.:D

SRT,
Here's a shot of a 4 axis table we made for a job. Used an HRT7 Haas rotary table.
If you look close you will see a milled flat on the face of the platter, that (was), or is , X zero, Y zero is the center line of the fixture. And Z tools were set on the flat on the top of the platter, at O deg rotation. Also we set the work offset, for the rotary, off the flat on the platter.
The small clamps are PIT BULL clamps from Mitee-Bite.
There were 16 parts per load. I'm sorry I can't show you the part(customers are funny that way). We started with a 2 x 2 x 3/4 blank. It has some features machined on 5 sides. We were able to get to all of them with this fixture by rotating the table.
Tightest tolerance was a hole thru the side of the part, (a flange sticking up), table rotated 90 deg or -90 deg, that had to be within .002 tolerance to the face and .002 tolerance to size.

Hu & WMS,
The Z offsets that I origionally referred to, are Z "work" offsets. I believe I "may" be seeing in your fixture, if I'm understanding correctly, that you are using one Z work offset for all 4 sides. My fixture/parts are not able to be square as it "appears" your fixture/ parts "may" be. Rather it is about 5' X 7". I have Side 0 & side 180 set to Z work offset Zero for all tools, and then because some of those tools are used on the other angles (90, 270, etc., etc.) I have different Z work offsets set to keep the tools at the correct Z Zero positions at those angles (different distances from the rotary C/L) . Have you ever set up that way? Or did you accomplish the same thing a different way. That is where I was hopeing the models would improve something for me. As for the G10, I've read about them, but never used them. Any info. on them that you feel may be helpful in this set up or for me in the future would be appreciated. Thank you.

Originally posted by wms
SRT,
And I'm told that there will be an 4 axis conversion option for XP series at some point.


well I'm waiting longing for it.
One little information I got is this:

The 4 axis will not be available for a few months. The capabilities will be a full 4 axis rather than a wrap function. This will enable you to rotate the part whilst machining it 3 axis therefore you have 4 axis simultaneous over a solid model in a rotating motion.


So far what ONECNC semiofficial :) says.

Kingkong

Originally posted by SRT

Or did you accomplish the same thing a different way.


Hi SRT,
in my eyes there is no need to talk about Z-offsets. Draw your cad-model with centerline on the real position as Zero, do your work on side1, rotate your cad-model do your work on side2 .
The Z should always be in a proper position because the CAM recognizes the necessary Z-Positions in relation to your centerline.
You have only to offset your tools corresponding to your centerline.

@G10

in my control I love to work with G52 as an incremental moving of your actual coordinate position. So you can put your zero to a 'normal' Position and correct your 'displacement' (zhat is not the correct word Ithink, but I hope you understand, what I want to say, be a little patient with my English, my German is a lot better ;) )
At least I do not know whether your control understands G52.

Kingkong

While I was writing this up Kingkong posted about the same thing. Kingkong your English is just fine, (better than my German) and thanks for the info.

SRT,
I understand that your part is not square and that you only want to use seperate Z tool offsets. My contention is that IF you are programing by hand or if you are using a cad / cam system where your have to draw each side independently, (say ver 18 Bobcad), then I would agree that it might be smart to use a different Z tool offset for each side.

But if you use a cad/cam system like OneCNC to model your part, you will have a true model of your part. Then by rotating your part in the cad program, you can let the program write the code to machine your part. One side at a time. You could do all steps for that side or you could use one tool and rotate the part to do all operation with that tool, then move on to the next tool. It really doesn't matter if one side sticks up 2 more inchs above the center line than the other, the cad / cam system doesn't care. It will figure out how to machine it.

If your are using a tooling block like the one shown above, and have 4 different parts loaded, (a different part on each face).
Or 4 diffferent operations on the same part, (one operation per face), then I would use a different work offsets (x.y,z,a) on each face. It would be likely that you would need to do this because of the different parts or different datum points on the same part.

Again it's whatever YOU"RE comfortable with. And you may do one job one way then decide that for the next you will do it a different way.

As for the G10, are you using a control that can the G10?
A Haas will, as well as some others. G10 is used to "reset" you work offsets while you from "inside " the program. If you have a manual it goes thru it pretty good. It takes a little getting used to.

Here's what it would look like:
G10 L2 P1 G91 X6.0 (this moves work offset G54 6.0 to right)

In the above expression:
G10 is the callout
L2 is work coordinates G54-G59
P1 is the call for G54
G91 is incremental move
X6.0 is amount to move

If you want to reset Z offset you would use :

G10 L10 G91 P5 R-.005 (this would move T5 DOWN -.005)

In the above expression:
G10 is the callout
L10 is length offset
G91 is incremental move
P5 is tool #5
R-.005 is amount to move


I know this can be confusing, but like everything else, after you use it for a while you will get the hang of it.
It allows you to reset any or all you offset inside the program.

Hello Kingkong,
I do use the G52 in my control when I am moving back and forth between mutiple vises. Yes I agree, I like that capability very much also. The rotary table process on a VMC is somewhat new to me whit what I am hoping to accomplish, and the thoughts that I am using are still in the developement stages. In the past when working on Horizontal machining centers with tombsones and pallet changers, the way it was being programmed then, is the method that I am using now. Mutiple different parts, at different angles, with holes that have to intersect and blend with close tolerances. This was the way that it was done with XYZ work offsets to adjust all the features. Those fixtures came off and went back on and had to be remachined every so often in order to use them for close tolerance work. So the XYZ offsets were changing every so often also. But that was being done without solid technology, as is now available. Hopefully this technology plus other advice is the answer to a less complicated process. Maybe solids won't help at all. I don't know enough about solids yet, to make an educated guess. Keep any donated ideas comming. Thank you.

WMS,
I have a Haas that I bought used, I didn't get a book with it so I ordered one from Haas, but they only sell current year books. So I'm not sure if it will do G10, or if that would be a good choice for this type of work?
There are several identical parts in a row grouped in sets of 2, attached to 0 & 180 that are rotated around so that they stick out from both sides towards the -90 & +90 sides. These sides (or ends of the parts) have several angles and hole features in each part. The holes must intersect with precision with holes that are put in from the 0 & 180 side, as well as other machined features. Each part "currently" has its own XY work offset, so fine adjustments can be made as necessary. Each angle has its own z work offset (same reason). Imagine your fixture, but with 2 parts being pushed toward a center machined solid locator in the X axis by mitee-bite clamps on each side in 2 rows (mutiple part sets), along the Y+ & Y- axis. Ocassionally these center solid machined locators have to be re-machined due to clamping deformations which occur etc.,etc. , now the X0 if programed as a grouped model would need to be changed to a lesser distance because of the material removed on the locators. How much of an effort would that be using the move function (I suppose) to go thru the program to change all of those in comparison to edge finding all the actual offset values. If in fact that would even be the way that you would suggest to do it? I know it takes a lot of time to use the edgefind method, but this is where your solids experience comes in, I don't know how much difficulty there is to change the solid drawing to accomplish the same thing or how many times it may needed to be reprogrammed to tweek it in. That is one of the type of decisions that would be necessary to make, in the solid thought process changes vs. as I'm now doing it. Thanks.

Heheh, add me to the list of guys writing while others were posting :) )

SRT, I think I'm getting the picture of where you experience the difficulty, let me explain myself, so you can tell me whether this is correct:

Even though your machine uses the G5x work offset, the part/fixture within your CAD model does not "know" about the work offset, so therefore it is giving you unadjusted values for the Z axis when you generate nc code. Hmm, I see the difficulty.

Are you currently making your nc programs as "stand alone" modules that use some feature of the part face for X0Y0Z0, but this datum point is different for each face? This would be okay for a tombstone used to hold a batch of identical parts.

But, if it is one part, with differing distances of its faces from the axis of rotation, this could add a lot of complexity. A single datum point for the entire part/fixture might be better. This would negate using work offsets, since the nc code would be created relative to the axis of rotation of your table.

You would still have to "virtually index" the part faces in cyberspace to create nc code, since Onecnc is making the assumption that the tool is approaching from Z+ towards Z-.

I do not suggest that you could properly simulate the total program, because the simulated faces would still superimpose on each other, but of course the program for machining each indexing could be simulated.

Is any of this touching on the issues that you are dealing with?

SRT,

If your are using a tooling block like the one shown above, and have 4 different parts loaded, (a different part on each face).
Or 4 diffferent operations on the same part, (one operation per face), then I would use a different work offsets (x.y,z,a) on each face. It would be likely that you would need to do this because of the different parts or different datum points on the same part.


I was under the impression from your original post that you wanted to model 1 part to rotate around the rotary.
Now that I know you are grouping parts on a platter, I would as stated above use seperate work offsets for every part.

How old is your Haas? What software version does it have?
Haas service tech could tell you if it will have G10.

As far as if your remachine your work stops, I would agree that at that time you should use your edgefinder and reset your work offsets.


In the picture below is a table, it has 4 parts like your, and all parts have their own work offset.

Originally posted by SRT
Ocassionally these center solid machined locators have to be re-machined due to clamping deformations which occur etc.,etc. , now the X0 if programed as a grouped model would need to be changed to a lesser distance because of the material removed on the locators. How much of an effort would that be using the move function (I suppose) to go thru the program to change all of those in comparison to edge finding all the actual offset values. If in fact that would even be the way that you would suggest to do it? I know it takes a lot of time to use the edgefind method, but this is where your solids experience comes in, I don't know how much difficulty there is to change the solid drawing to accomplish the same thing or how many times it may needed to be reprogrammed to tweek it in. That is one of the type of decisions that would be necessary to make, in the solid thought process changes vs. as I'm now doing it. Thanks. [/B]

SRT, to be clear, if you actually move the solid model within Onecnc's cyberspace, then you will have to create a new "nc process" to get the updated positions. A simple "edit operation" within Onecnc's Nc manager will not incorporate toolpath alterations except as pertains to the size of the tool, or the depth of cut or the stepover, etc. The re-selection of the profile or model in its new position to be cut is not part of the "edit process" function.

Originally posted by SRT

I do use the G52 in my control when I am moving back and forth between mutiple vises. Yes I agree, I like that capability very much also.

Hi SRT,
one of the benefits of G52 (but at least of the G10 too) is, that you have millions of possibilities for moving your coordinates. In my control (HURCO Ultimax) I can put a A or B-word with G52 too. Therefore I would make me a template with some lines for controlling your subprograms.

Just only a sketch of an idea:
O1 - Ox are your working programs as sub's (one for each tool call or one i.e. per working side of your turntable)

#1 is a parameter for controlling the subprogram-calls

START:
(your prelines from ONECNC)
#1=1
M98 P90 (or G65 L1)
#1=2
M98 P90
#1=3
M98 P90
#1=4
M98 P90
#1=5
M98 P90
#1=6
M98 P90
()

(put your 'last' lines here)

M30
(Finish is now here!)

()
O90 (Start control' Sub)
G52 X0 Y0 Z0 A0
M98P#1
G52 X-0.01 Y0.04 Z0 A90
M98P#1
G52 X0.1 Y0.001 Z-.01 A180
M98P#1
G52 X0 Y0 Z0.02 A270
M98P#1
M99 (End Sub)
()
(Subprograms)
O1
your NC-Code from Onecnc ...
M99

O2
your NC-Code from Onecnc ...
M99
E

Just for my dictionary: what do you call a tombstone? Is that one of the square colums on the fotos to fix parts on?


Maybe solids won't help at all.
[/B]

nothing in this world will help AT ALL, but it should help more then it is harmful :confused:

My opinion is, that you should work with your edgefinder to find out the offsets of every piece-position in your fixing block and fill these positions into my template. Then only put the code-sections into the subs and do not forget to test my sketch it is in this manner absolutely untested!!

Kingkong

P.S. @Hu :Heheh, add me to the list of guys writing while others were posting

dont quarrel, even post quicker :rainfro: (SCNR, I had to use this smiley one time)

To all who have contributed suggestions, Thank you very much. Much of what has been suggested, except the G10 and solid thoughts, I am familiar with. I believe the next step would be for me to get a handle on the solids as they would appear rotating around a C/L. I'm hopeful things will get clearer then. I have parts drawn on 0 & 180 which will also be machined on the +90 & -90 sides. I'm not sure how the correct way would be to show a table rotation up to the tool location, and then cut just those sides. I guess a blank out of all the rest of the geometry other than the 12:00 position, using layers may be the best. Any suggestions about that? Thank you.

KK,
The tombstones are as you are mentioning in the photos, but they are not limited to just 4 sides. As you may already know some have 2,3,4,5,6 sides. The ones I was programming for and using on a HMC even had a part on the top, also getting an operation machined on it.
As far as the solids helping as you restate in your previous post, it is necessary that the benefit that is received must be worth the cost of the investment. I realize the benefit of solids in other areas of machining (no question there), but I'm still "trying to determine" solids benefit in programming as in indexing. I'm not just looking for something better than my current software, but rather, something that will do these particular indexing process better. The questions that I was asking earlier in other threads, about the verification in onecnc being a still shot verses a moving verification (as in MC & some others) of the rendering, is one of the reservations that I have about this software in this decision. There is a lot of things happening in this situation verses a group of vises setting still on the table.

What are we talking for 4 axis capability?
Just curious.

Hardmill,
In reference to the $$$ question, are you asking prices of a vertical mill that has 4th axis capability=?, or the rotary table that goes on the mill to perform the 4th axis capability of the mill=?, or the cost of the programming softwares that I am investigating to help with the 4th axis programming of the mill and rotary table=?

Thanks to all who donated your helpful suggestions.
But....well.....yep.....,
It's back to reality,
Using what I was origionally using for 4th axis rotary table programming,
"Work Offsets" and sometimes, plenty of them.

To clarify, I sent back the Expert after 28 days when I found out that it wouldn't preform as it had been explained to me that it would. I found support to be very lacking. I had to call several times in order to get them to call me back, once I started asking the right questions. To get them to call back on several ocassions, I even had to call the office phone operator, to ask them to get support to call me back, after support didn't return my direct calls to them. I started feeling that I was onto some of there software problems, and they were just letting the 30 days return time run out on me. Then they wouldn't refund my $4500.00, so I called in the Credit card company, and they were told 2 different times that the money was going to be sent back. But it didn't happen as they were told it would, those 2 times. So when the allowed time was nearly expired to get my money back, the credit card company told me that they would have to do a charge-back against them in order to get my money back. Prior to sending the Expert back, I had been getting some very bad feelings about what may occur in the return process dealing with this software company. I'm sure glad that when I sent it back to them, that I had a notary public send it back for me, as proof of return. "Finally" I received my $4500.00 credit.