![]() | |
| Home Page | Mark Forums Read | Today's Posts | My Replies | Classifieds | Reviews | Photo Gallery | Web Links | Share Files | Advertise With Us | Ad List |
| |||||||
| ArtCam Pro Discuss ArtCam Pro software here. |
| This forum is sponsored by: |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
Need help...ok...this paneling thing has me a bit confused. If it returns home 0,0 after it cuts the first panel...then you pull your material through...how the heck do you make sure that the material is absolutly in the right place...if its off a centimeter..your cut will be off! Why doesnt artcam after cutting the first panel simply raise(z) the tool where it stops then you can pull the material through and lower the z to make its in the right spot and start from that point? sounds goofy to me to have it return to 0,0 Im I doing something wrong? Does someone know a way of doing this? Thanks!!!! |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Most of the time it is advantageous to return to 0,0 - especially if you have 0,0 set to the center of the workpiece - and so it is the default. I suppose you could write or modify a postprocessor so your g-code did not do this if you were to need it often enough, but it is probably just easier to simply remove the offending line from the bottom of the generated g-code files in notepad or something. |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Just FYI to all; The whole return home after cutting is something that is hardcoded in the program and from what I have been advised by development it was for safety reasons (well it could be argued several ways as to the theory behind this). Even if you remove the return home line in the .con post processor file please be aware that you will still end up with this X0 Y0 move. It has been requested a few times in the past that this restriction be removed so that the user can have more control over what happens at the end of a toolpath that has just been run. This request has been entered into the system as a wish and the development team are aware that some users would like this to be changed. That said its a bit of a double edged sword as far as if its removed then some users will not be happy that its gone and been changed. Ideally it would be nice to implement this request as a user definable setting so that some could have it on and other could have it off. I know this doesnt solve your issue but I wanted to add some additional comments about this topic so as to help everyone better understand what is going on with this. So currently your best option would be to manually edit the code and remove any unwanted return home moves that would exisit at the end of your code. |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Newbie Question Where to Start? | electromech31 | Bridgeport and Hardinge Mills | 7 | 11-08-2007 08:38 PM |
| Newbie question: what's causing this finish? | Involute | Syil Products | 12 | 06-18-2007 04:08 AM |
| Single start vs double start ballscrew. | darik | Linear and Rotary Motion | 13 | 03-21-2007 07:53 PM |
| Bad finish | fadalman | Fadal | 5 | 12-09-2006 01:00 PM |
| PCB routing from start to finish | Swede | General Electronics Discussion | 7 | 01-29-2004 06:20 PM |