PP mod suggestion for mills

PathPilot
1

Ok I’ll admit it, I’ve broken two tools now because of doing something stupid, and very specific.

On thinking about it, there is a tidy solution, if there could be a very small modification to PathPilot.

I wonder what other folks think of this.

Scenario: on my 770MX I had the ETS electronic tool setter fixed to the table on the right side, and my vice (with some work in it) about centre position.

I’m prototyping so it’s all a bit ‘piecemeal’ and my mind is busy creating my new part so maybe I’m to blame, but I did nothing more than this…

  1. Put a new tool in the spindle
  2. Automatically measured it’s length using ETS
  3. On ATC page, pressed “store current tool”

In doing so, you guessed it, as the ATC retracted the new tool back into it’s clasp, it drove my expensive, brand new, ‘just been measured’, tool right through the top of the work in the vice.

I did this last year and thought “what an idiot”. But I’ve just done it again and I’m thinking, “it’s easy to do, maybe I’m not such a fool”.

I always have my G30 POSITION set to something overly cautious and safe, z high, and table out to the right away from the ATC.

So, here is my suggestion: please could we have an automatic G30 call, at the beginning of the ATC “store current tool” macro?

Whenever we choose to store a tool, being as the ATC is relatively low in z, it makes sense to do this, as it’s best to clear the path. But easy to forget in the heat of the moment. Would be nice if this was done for us.

What do others think?

2

Hello @Steve_Dunthorne

Firstly, welcome to the Tormach community :grinning:

Secondly, I forwarded this request to our PathPilot team, and although we do not currently have any plans to add this feature to v2.12, the team was intrigued by your request, and we are going to look into what it would take to potentially add this to a future update. We do not at this time know if it is even possible to re-map M codes to custom sub-routines, so I am not making any promises, but we did think it was a cool idea that we can look into.

Our machines currently offer the option to create custom M codes between M101 and M199, so it is possible to have an M code that moves the table to a specific position before changing tools, but that is an advanced feature we do not recommend using unless you are an experienced programmer.

Additionally, our machines offer the option to use custom data inputs and outputs, the adapter for which can be found at: Tormach PathPilot Upgrade - USB M-Code I/O Interface Kit - SKU 32616

I hope this answers your question!

3

Hi @Steve_Dunthorne - I’ve noted the request and am looking into this issue. I would have thought the G30 would have been respected in this case as well since you already set a tool change position. It sounds like the macro might be using the G28 home instead of the G30 secondary home position, if I understand your post correctly, but only in the case of the Store Current Tool button.

Thanks for reporting this!
Tom Z

4

@Steve_Dunthorne Sorry, I mis-read this post and thought you had the table move on the tool change and not the ATC moving which caused the tool break. Sounds like Rob has you covered but I wanted to make sure.

5

Ah, yes, thanks Tom. It is the ATC taking the tool back to the carousel, and dragging it across the work/vice setup, simply because I didn’t put them in a great position with reference to the ETS on the table. But sometimes, positioning the ETS and the vice will be a bit ‘unplanned’ shall we say, so whenever one measures a tool, probably the next thing they will do is wish to ‘store it’. If they don’t, and then they do some machining, this tool will not ‘own’ a position in the ATC. So a tool change command after using this tool will inevitably ask the operator to take the tool out manually, as it has nowhere to put it.

If then, we agree that after measuring a tool length, we will often wish to then store it, then I am suggesting a G30 command before trying to store it, JUST IN CASE there is a potential crash issue. It can’t hurt, so would be a win-win, in my opinion.

I really appreciate your input and response, thank you.

6

Thank Robert, I appreciate your response very much. I do hope the PathPilot team do look at this, as I can only see it being an advantage, with no disadvantage.

Kind regards. Steve