I don't see any reason to use so many work offsets. It offers no advantage if you are reprobing at the start of every cycle. Might as well use the same 2 work offsets for everything.
Hi Dannirr. The advantage is that I will not have to manually re-probe at the start of every cycle. Instead, I simply call up the program for the part I want to probe/cut and just hit cycle start. I only have to manually probe the first time I run the probing routine for that part. Those offsets will be stored indefinitely in the controller. If you use the same two work offsets for everything you have to manually probe each time.
@@dannirr I should clarify that I AM probing at the start of every cycle but, I don't have to manually jog the probe into position. The probing routine comes from Fusion 360 (not Pathpilot) and is programmed for the geometry of each part much like you would program tool paths. The limit switches could be out as much as 0.010 ( or more) and the probing cycles would still run just fine after homing the machine. The advantage for me is being able to load the probe into the spindle, call up the probing program for whichever parts I am cutting, and just hit 'Cycle Start' and the probe automatically knows where to look for the features it has been programmed to inspect and thus update the WCS. After that, I simply run my cutting program. I need to make a follow-up video showing how easy it is to change from setup to setup and run probing routines back to back with no 'rough probing' or manual jogging of the probe needed. This will illustrate the advantage of having a unique WCS for each part/setup.
@@eriksonderlon Thank you for your ongoing dialog. I understand what you are doing - and I have used the probing routines since David Loomis first released them. Perhaps it's just me, but I still don't see where you have the need for unique WCS for each setup. If you simply set the WCS at the start of your day, by probing a fixed feature (or maybe not even a fixed feature is necessary), you could use the same 2 WCS for everything (lets just say G54 and G55 for example) . As I understand what you are doing, you are probing an existing feature and then correcting it's unique WCS. But you could do the same thing and correct G54 and G55, as when you load up the next setup you're going to probe a feature anyway - and could again correct G54 andG55. Another option of course it to use a pallet system and not even need to reprobe?
@@dannirr Thank you for wanting to dig deeper with me. I still find it preferable to have a unique WCS for each part and setup and the reason all hinges on the fact that I won't have to re-train the probe to run in the right location for each set of different parts I run. Let's say I were to use G54 and G55 only for all of the pairs of different parts that I make. Let's suppose that one set of two identical parts has a distance of two inches between their centers and the tops of both parts sit one inch above the rear vise jaw and that X0Y0Z0 is part center/top for each of the two parts. I rough-probe to set X0Y0Z0 in both G54 and G55. Then I run my Fusion 360 generated probing operations for G54 and G55, this will set the WCS for each part. Now, If I were to run multiple sets of these same two parts, then, for each subsequent set of those same parts I can just run the probing cycle without having to "rough probe" in order to tell the probing cycle where to probe. And yes, I always probe the stock or features on or a milled surface from a previous Op (usually a bore that cuts through the other side). All is good. Now, it's time to change over to a completely different set of two parts (I'm making two at a time). Let's say these two new parts with different geometry from the first set of parts have a distance of three inches between their centers instead of two and that the height above the rear vise jaw is now two inches instead of one. If I were to run the Fusion 360 generated probing Op that I pre-programmed for these new parts without rough probing the new parts, my probe would crash into the stock because it thinks that X0Y0Z0 of G54 and G55 are the previously probed locations from the first set of parts. I am not able to just load the Fusion generated probing Op for these two new parts and hit cycle start. I would have to rough probe the new geometry as X0Y0Z0 has shifted (0.5 inches in X in either direction for each part and 1.00 inch higher for Z, Y may or may not be in the same location). If, however, I dedicate a WCS for each part and setup, Pathpilot will remember the offset that was probed the last time I ran this particular set of parts and will use it as the basis of the probing cycle I am about to run. I can just load the probe, call up the probing Op for the two new parts (let's say they are G56 G57) and hit cycle start. For anyone new listening in, this is all predicated on the fact that I use a Carvesmart soft jaw system that always locates my stock for any given set of parts in the same location in my vise and the position of that vise on the mill table always stays the same. Now, I will admit that there is a feature in Fusion where you can drive the probe from another WCS. Let's say that this WCS is the top left corner of your fixed jaw and that you assign this WCS to G59.3 and never use it for anything else. You could then just use G54 and G55 for every set of two parts. I, however, don't like doing it this way because the WCS for your parts also has to be the top left corner of your fixed jaw and must be modeled correctly in Fusion 360. Also, you would have to pattern your tool paths (which I don't like to do because in the real world, fixtures, soft jaws, etc. can flex and then you're in Fusion making micro-adjustments to your patterning inputs in order to cut accurate parts. This might not be necessary on first Ops but definitely on second and third Ops). One could also duplicate their part and then program a second set of tool paths on the duplicated part but this, too, I would like to avoid. Even if I were running pallets I would still probe actual part features for second and third ops if the tolerances required it and at that point, the probe would most likely be a Renishaw system in the tool changer and would be fully automated.
Fantastic video. Thanks! Might be time to put this method to work on my 770.
Thanks advil000!
I don't see any reason to use so many work offsets. It offers no advantage if you are reprobing at the start of every cycle. Might as well use the same 2 work offsets for everything.
Hi Dannirr. The advantage is that I will not have to manually re-probe at the start of every cycle. Instead, I simply call up the program for the part I want to probe/cut and just hit cycle start. I only have to manually probe the first time I run the probing routine for that part. Those offsets will be stored indefinitely in the controller. If you use the same two work offsets for everything you have to manually probe each time.
@@eriksonderlon doesn't that assume the limit switches are perfectly accurate, which they are not?
@@dannirr I should clarify that I AM probing at the start of every cycle but, I don't have to manually jog the probe into position. The probing routine comes from Fusion 360 (not Pathpilot) and is programmed for the geometry of each part much like you would program tool paths.
The limit switches could be out as much as 0.010 ( or more) and the probing cycles would still run just fine after homing the machine.
The advantage for me is being able to load the probe into the spindle, call up the probing program for whichever parts I am cutting, and just hit 'Cycle Start' and the probe automatically knows where to look for the features it has been programmed to inspect and thus update the WCS. After that, I simply run my cutting program.
I need to make a follow-up video showing how easy it is to change from setup to setup and run probing routines back to back with no 'rough probing' or manual jogging of the probe needed. This will illustrate the advantage of having a unique WCS for each part/setup.
@@eriksonderlon Thank you for your ongoing dialog. I understand what you are doing - and I have used the probing routines since David Loomis first released them. Perhaps it's just me, but I still don't see where you have the need for unique WCS for each setup. If you simply set the WCS at the start of your day, by probing a fixed feature (or maybe not even a fixed feature is necessary), you could use the same 2 WCS for everything (lets just say G54 and G55 for example) . As I understand what you are doing, you are probing an existing feature and then correcting it's unique WCS. But you could do the same thing and correct G54 and G55, as when you load up the next setup you're going to probe a feature anyway - and could again correct G54 andG55. Another option of course it to use a pallet system and not even need to reprobe?
@@dannirr Thank you for wanting to dig deeper with me. I still find it preferable to have a unique WCS for each part and setup and the reason all hinges on the fact that I won't have to re-train the probe to run in the right location for each set of different parts I run.
Let's say I were to use G54 and G55 only for all of the pairs of different parts that I make. Let's suppose that one set of two identical parts has a distance of two inches between their centers and the tops of both parts sit one inch above the rear vise jaw and that X0Y0Z0 is part center/top for each of the two parts. I rough-probe to set X0Y0Z0 in both G54 and G55. Then I run my Fusion 360 generated probing operations for G54 and G55, this will set the WCS for each part. Now, If I were to run multiple sets of these same two parts, then, for each subsequent set of those same parts I can just run the probing cycle without having to "rough probe" in order to tell the probing cycle where to probe. And yes, I always probe the stock or features on or a milled surface from a previous Op (usually a bore that cuts through the other side). All is good.
Now, it's time to change over to a completely different set of two parts (I'm making two at a time). Let's say these two new parts with different geometry from the first set of parts have a distance of three inches between their centers instead of two and that the height above the rear vise jaw is now two inches instead of one. If I were to run the Fusion 360 generated probing Op that I pre-programmed for these new parts without rough probing the new parts, my probe would crash into the stock because it thinks that X0Y0Z0 of G54 and G55 are the previously probed locations from the first set of parts. I am not able to just load the Fusion generated probing Op for these two new parts and hit cycle start. I would have to rough probe the new geometry as X0Y0Z0 has shifted (0.5 inches in X in either direction for each part and 1.00 inch higher for Z, Y may or may not be in the same location). If, however, I dedicate a WCS for each part and setup, Pathpilot will remember the offset that was probed the last time I ran this particular set of parts and will use it as the basis of the probing cycle I am about to run. I can just load the probe, call up the probing Op for the two new parts (let's say they are G56 G57) and hit cycle start.
For anyone new listening in, this is all predicated on the fact that I use a Carvesmart soft jaw system that always locates my stock for any given set of parts in the same location in my vise and the position of that vise on the mill table always stays the same.
Now, I will admit that there is a feature in Fusion where you can drive the probe from another WCS. Let's say that this WCS is the top left corner of your fixed jaw and that you assign this WCS to G59.3 and never use it for anything else. You could then just use G54 and G55 for every set of two parts. I, however, don't like doing it this way because the WCS for your parts also has to be the top left corner of your fixed jaw and must be modeled correctly in Fusion 360. Also, you would have to pattern your tool paths (which I don't like to do because in the real world, fixtures, soft jaws, etc. can flex and then you're in Fusion making micro-adjustments to your patterning inputs in order to cut accurate parts. This might not be necessary on first Ops but definitely on second and third Ops). One could also duplicate their part and then program a second set of tool paths on the duplicated part but this, too, I would like to avoid.
Even if I were running pallets I would still probe actual part features for second and third ops if the tolerances required it and at that point, the probe would most likely be a Renishaw system in the tool changer and would be fully automated.