Matrix with tool numbers?

Does anyone think the Matrix programming format for mill/turns will eventually go back to the 640T method with regards to Tool identification? That's one of my biggest problems with the new control. I mean...when I want the program to use Tool 2, I want to put Tool 2 in the program. I don't like the idea of calling my 80deg, 35deg, OD groove, & 1" boring bar all a 1" nominal description and hoping the machine picks the right one. I also don't particularly like the idea of having to give each of these (for example) a unique identifying letter so the machine will choose the correct one.

Maybe I'm on this boat alone, or maybe I am missing something. I know the integrex and mill users are probably used to it.

I think I can get used to the Multiple Unit header lines and the Sequence info seems the same. I like many of the new features, including them wicked cool dials for Speed/Feed/Rapid override...enough with the push button control.
I wish it could go back to the old Tool ID method or I wish I could really learn the advantage of the new method to offset the additional work of trying to tell it to use TOOL 2 (or whatever).

I'm looking into adding 2 more SQT's (probably 2003's - 2005's) in the next few months and I wish going with new equipment felt like more of an option, but the tool thing is a big barrier for me right now. I know there are other issues, bugs, etc, but I'm sure they will be sorted out eventially.

Can anyone help me see the light?
...or do you have similar opinions?

hmmm, I must be talkin' crazy talk.

got no idea what your talking about as i have no matrix machines
heck i don't program even if i did
but in 20+ years i've seen few "revert to the old way"
regardless of how stupid the new way is
get happy about the new way
or switch to fanuc
are probly your choices
it's an old dog
new tricks kinda world

and i'm still peein in the corners

you're probably right. I don't mind learning the new stuff...when it makes things faster in the end.

I've been a fanuc guy for years and didn't like this tool id procedure either. I found you can call all tools except rotating tools by their pot numbers though. Just call T1 "nom." 1A for Hd 1 and 1B for Hd2.

When i went from working a super quick turn to an intergrex i hated the different type of tool description, all the intergrex boys dismissed my moaning and told me i'd get used to it. I gotta say they were right. It soon becomes second nature and is just as easy to program, for example, "grv out a" rather than "5a".

The only way i think you could run into trouble is if you had two tools described as "grv out a", which is probably unlikely. I've never had the machine pick up the wrong tool yet and so long as its described properly everything is just fine.

The real benifit on the integrex with 640mt control is when i go into the tool layout page and can instantly see which tools i already have in the magazine and which ones need to be described and loaded.

U.K., when you save the program, are you also saving the tool "GRV OUT A" identification in the program, or when you load the program, do you need to need to run through the program and re-select the tools again? For instance, you also run a 3mm groove/turn tool in position 4 and always run a 3mm cutoff blade in position 8. So you call the program back to re-run the job in a month, the tools haven't left the position in machine, do you need to re-assign the tools within the program again?

Its just an example I thought of...trying to compare what I'm used to doing to how different the change will be.

Thanks to all for the comments, I appreciate the discussion.

We use mazaks camware package for storing programs. I know nothing about how other systems work but with camware the program is saved exactly as it is on the machine, so when its loaded back in later all the process in the program have all the same tool identification as they did originally.

The 3mm groove tool would be described as say "grv out a" and then you would have your parting blade described as "grv out b" and the program would be written obviously utilising "grv out a" for grooving and "grv out b" for the parting operation. So long as the tools haven't been taken out its simply a matter of running the program.

On the t-plus control if one of the tools was called say "4" or "4a" it may have been taken out of the machine and that number/suffix changed in the tool data. Then its a matter of trawling through the tool data to see if a grooving tool is described some where as another number/suffix and altering the program to suit, or possibly editing both the program and tool data file if there is no suitable tool described at all.

Not too sure about the matrix control on an sqt but with the 640mt on an integrex if the grooving tool were no longer described anywhere in the tool data its simply a matter of describing "grv out a" in whatever magazine pocket number you choose, it doesnt matter which physical position/station number you put it in so long as its called "grv out a". This gives me more flexibility in how i manage the tool data and magazine without ever having to change tool numbers/suffix's in the program, which i was forever doing when i ran an sqt. This makes setting up the machine/tools to run a program much simpler and quicker.

I was just like you at first and wished the intergrex's had the same tool description set up as the t-plus sqt's. Now when i do spend a little time running an sqt i find the old turret number/suffix format very frustrating and always find myself swearing alot.

here is an easy way to do this:
give tool #1 a nominal diameter of 1 inch
give tool #2 a nominal diameter of 2 inchs, and so on. that will make the programming a little easier. with this method, you just put in the nominal diameter the same as the tool number.

metalmover, the only problem that may create is issues with the new "shields". You can't turn them off like the old "barriers" and as I understand it, the Matrix is very sensitive to having ALL the data just right. My friend was programming a simple Manual Process to press a logo stamp into the face of a copper part. It wouldn't run until he was able to figure out what type of drill description the control was looking for. Manual Process used to never even require Tool Data Description, now everything requires accurate descriptions. ...Man, I forgot about the shield issues until now.

It is like anything else. if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The more acurate you are with your toll desciptions, the easier it is to use the barriers. The thing you want to avoid in using the pocket # as your nom. dia, is that if you tell it there is a tool in pocket #11 with a nom. dia of 11" then it only turn fast enough for a drill that size. you have to tell it the proper nom. dia in order to get the constant surface footage to work right.

I'm a total CNC Newby and just got a new Integrex with Matrix control so I don't know any other way.
The nice thing about the new tool system is that you can register several tools into one Pocket Number. It could be anything, endmill, o.d. turning, threading.... The info will always stay there.
This way if you routinely use more tools than you have avalible pockets, you can just insert the new tool in the pocket and go with your next program. The machine just looks for the tool.

If you run out of letters for say a 1" boring bar just change to .99" or something that is a good memory jogger if that helps.

Thanks for the input NewB.

It sounds like extra steps added to a once quicker process... or perhaps I think we have methods of working with the "old style" that has been so fine tuned and is so efficient, that whenever you are faced with having to do additional steps as a "work around" on common to almost every setup tasks, its difficult to understand for me. I can see advantages on some tasks as described by people in this topic. Those advantages could be utilized from time to time. I see having to fiddle with numbers more frequently to get the desired results as well.
It's difficult to tell the how well the Matrix would integrate into our current shop protocols and methods, without actually doing it. I'm sure we could develope a system and understanding of the new control and incorporate it into our existing set sheet database and setup methods, which is taylored to the different machine styles, ie: MS, MSY, M, etc. The use of adding letters to tools would need to have a standardize format developed. I don't think you would want everyone doing it their "own way". An example of a standard that we use is all double sided tools (main and sub spindle) in the machine, the main side uses the Tool number (tool 6) and the sub side used the number followed by an S (tool 6S). So the tool data is comprised of 1,1S, 2,2S, 3,3S, and so on. It would just time to learn the specifics of the matrix and then develop a robust standardization for everyone to follow. ...and in the words of the Merovingian: "Who has time? Who has time? But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time?"

I can sympathize with ya Jimmy B.

I'm an EIA kind of guy poking in Mazatrol and I hate the way tools are defined. Of course I do like the ability to name a host of tools in the same pocket, and I must admit that I like the ease in setting up an insert drill to be able to use it as a drill, boring tool face and truning tool with ease. I still need to come to grips with the whole tool definition thing. IN time I can say how it just might make life easier. for now, it's a pain.

Stu

Actually I talked with a couple different apps guys and they all tend to define their stick tools the same way. It makes it easy if you call with a question. For rotating tooling, you just define a niominal tool by the ID and you can use a designator (A - Z, but not I or O) to ensure a specific tool is called.

For a lathe tool (stick tool) It's typically defined with the nominal as the pocket number (it doesn't set a barrier like it would with a mill tool, the barrier comes from the tool model) and then the designator is the orientation of the tool.

Imagine a turning right hand turn and face tool in pocket 20. You could define this tool in one of 6 orientations. All of them are nominal 20 and the way it comes out of the tool changer @ B 0 would be an A, rotate B to 90 degrees and it would be a B, rotate B to 180 and it would be a C. Go back to 0 and flip or flash the tool 180 so it's reversed and it becomes a D, orient it down to 90 in B and it's an E, go up to 180 in B and it's an E.

You can define this one pocket now as 6 separate tools (if it's a mill drill it can be another 3).

calling the tool a 20C means any Mazak engineer should know it's a right hand boring bar for use on a sub spindle. In EIA it becomes simply T20.3
or mazatrol tool 20D is an EIA T20.4

I still think it's odd, but I must admit it's pretty versatile. At least you only need to draw your model once...

Stu