Are new machines today meaningfully better than older machines? - Page 6
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 130
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeymourDumore View Post
    I still fail to see the shortcomings of G-code in that post.
    Is the control capable of some fancy things? Sure, but that's got nothing to do with G-code.
    Makino Wire EDM's Hyper-I control is a pretty fancy front end, it is capable of some amazing stuff.
    Hell, the latest generation even has an Alexa-like interface ( I've asked the install guy to kindly keep that portion neatly wrapped in the original packaging and away from me )
    They (Makino) did such a nice job with the GUI, that even though it is a Windows based front end, in no part can you detect a single Windows-like icon, text, behavior or graphical depiction.

    And yet, the actual machine commands are G-code with a Fanuc controller in the background.
    I am sure that if they so decide that to equip the machines with a built-in self leveling capability, a single G378 V0 H0 command could activate it.

    Look at Mori's Celos controls.
    Do you think it's hindered by G-code?
    The UI is the UI, regardless whether it has a Fanuc, Siemens or Mits back end.
    They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but the fact that they're all commanded by G-code is not one of them!
    When I was developing turn key automation at DMG MORI for customers, the limitations of G-Code were a constant issue.

    More power to get things done on the back end is definitely a good thing. Again, not needed for the vast majority of cases, but a good tool none the less. Are we going to argue the merits of Macro B next? I've worked on old iron that didn't have macros, and have no desire to go back to those days.

    Again, I don't care at all about the actual motion commands. G-code is fine for that. I'd like access to the other functions that come with a more "advanced" programming language.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    464
    Likes (Received)
    2266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post

    Again, I don't care at all about the actual motion commands. G-code is fine for that. I'd like access to the other functions that come with a more "advanced" programming language.
    OK, so we now came full circle ( for the umpteenth time with this subject ) that G-code is not in any way a problem.
    As I've noted earlier, a special G-code can not only call an external program ( written in your favorite language ), but also pass all kinds of variables to such external program.
    If your control can't do that, then that is NOT on the shouders of G-code, rather than the MTB's failure of implementing such external call.
    It isn't a Siemens thing, or a Fanuc thing, or a Mitsubishi thing or a Haas thing, and most certainly not a G-code thing.

    If my Wire EDM can sound an external beeper when the program is ended or when there is an alarm, it can just as easily access my favorite porn site on the web
    to play the latest clips in HD while it is burning happily for hours-on-end.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    8,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    It's not just parsing names from programs.
    Well sorry but you were the one who held that up as an example of the great new things you can do with "modern" software.

    ... you're missing out if you can't stop telling everyone how you had the world by the balls in 1982.
    Not missing out on anything, just pointing out that all this great new stuff has been around for fifty years.

    I've worked on old iron that didn't have macros, and have no desire to go back to those days.
    You keep doing this. Your example is over fifty years old. Bendix offered an upgrade to the 5 that gave you macros. That was in 1978. It was six grand, I passed ...

    The argument is not that a lot of things can't be useful. It's that this stuff is new. It's not. And you don't need to butcher g-code to add it.

    Now if you were talking about adding something useful to g-code, such as more advanced interpolation for curves (and even that's not new, TERA had parabolic interpolation way beck when), then I'd be behind you all the way. But this other stuff, sorry, not impressed.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    10,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    631
    Likes (Received)
    8670

    Default

    In 90 plus percent of the time very basic G-code does it all.
    One of course wants splines. That handed in various ways.
    Bob

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    593

    Default

    Working with modern machines, Id say they have come a ways since the 80's and 90s
    -linear motors with 4000ipm rapids
    -on board simulation
    -on board collision detection
    -on board kinemetics for 5axis instead of set gauge length tooling, etc
    -40k+ RPM with the dynamics to make use of it
    -smarter toolchanger and pallet recoveries
    - hi and low tech collision recovery
    just to name a few

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    8,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mkd View Post
    Working with modern machines, Id say they have come a ways since the 80's and 90s
    -linear motors with 4000ipm rapids
    Funny, that's the same thing I said about six times. Except 99.5% of modern machines do not have those.

    -on board simulation
    Good idea. Use your $450,000 hmc to do what a $2,000 peecee with Vericut can do before the program gets anywhere near the machine

    -on board collision detection
    Are you referring to in the program or in action ? Either way, for #1 see above, for #2 was done decades ago.

    -on board kinemetics for 5axis instead of set gauge length tooling, etc
    -40k+ RPM with the dynamics to make use of it
    -smarter toolchanger and pallet recoveries
    - hi and low tech collision recovery
    just to name a few
    Nothing revolutionary in any way, and most of it implemented forty years ago. No need to believe me, read the programming manual

    http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/2098/17060.pdf

    This one published in 1986 but that control was out before 1982, I think 1980 ? We had two of them so got a little hands-on. Lovely control.

    Yes computers are faster but that's pretty much the extent of it.

    @boosted, you might jump ahead to section 8 (purely coincidence, heh heh ) to see what could already be done under RS-447 Type II data statements in the eighties.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    @boosted, you might jump ahead to section 8 (purely coincidence, heh heh ) to see what could already be done under RS-447 Type II data statements in the eighties.
    Where are we going with this? Neat, that controller is appreciably more powerful than a FANUC with MACRO B. It's nowhere near as powerful as this one. Sinumerik 840D Advanced Programming Guide pdf - CNC Manual

    But both platforms fall way short of C# or VB (or some other "real" programming language), which would bring additional functionality that some of us would love to see.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    8,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    But both platforms fall way short of C# or VB (or some other "real" programming language), which would bring additional functionality that some of us would love to see.
    Difference between RISC and CISC, or Assembler and C++. Nothing actually runs on C++, it gets compiled. RISC killed CISC years and years ago, Intel finally had to riscify its processors or lose the market.

    The control is not the place to do shit like that. It's like having your television wash the dishes. Sure, lovely, nice, wonderful, it can turn the lights out when you go to bed, too but ... 98% worthless. Not the place for it.

  9. Likes machinistrrt liked this post
  10. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    Where are we going with this? Neat, that controller is appreciably more powerful than a FANUC with MACRO B. It's nowhere near as powerful as this one. Sinumerik 840D Advanced Programming Guide pdf - CNC Manual

    But both platforms fall way short of C# or VB (or some other "real" programming language), which would bring additional functionality that some of us would love to see.
    Heidenhain uses python, C# and SQL.

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Funny, that's the same thing I said about six times. Except 99.5% of modern machines do not have those.


    Good idea. Use your $450,000 hmc to do what a $2,000 peecee with Vericut can do before the program gets anywhere near the machine


    Are you referring to in the program or in action ? Either way, for #1 see above, for #2 was done decades ago.


    Nothing revolutionary in any way, and most of it implemented forty years ago. No need to believe me, read the programming manual

    http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/2098/17060.pdf

    This one published in 1986 but that control was out before 1982, I think 1980 ? We had two of them so got a little hands-on. Lovely control.

    Yes computers are faster but that's pretty much the extent of it.

    @boosted, you might jump ahead to section 8 (purely coincidence, heh heh ) to see what could already be done under RS-447 Type II data statements in the eighties.
    In the imaginary standard in your head, you're right.
    In reality, these things are now widespread in the marketplace and weren't back in the day, which was the original premise of this thread.
    So I win

  12. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeymourDumore View Post
    As I've noted earlier, a special G-code can not only call an external program ( written in your favorite language ), but also pass all kinds of variables to such external program.
    If your control can't do that, then that is NOT on the shouders of G-code, rather than the MTB's failure of implementing such external call.
    It isn't a Siemens thing, or a Fanuc thing, or a Mitsubishi thing or a Haas thing, and most certainly not a G-code thing.
    Even the MTB ultimately only has control over the PLC. What platform is on the backend makes a HUGE difference in it's capabilities. There is a reason certain controllers are used heavily for custom built machinery (like MotionGuru's machines), and others are not.

    We could argue semantics about what is or isn't part of G-Code, but when some of us say we would like to see "more sophisticated code", we're looking for that extra power.

  13. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mkd View Post
    Heidenhain uses python, C# and SQL.
    Is this true? Where and how?

    We have a iTNC530 in the shop, and I'm pretty damn sure I can't just run a C# program on it!

  14. Likes mkd liked this post
  15. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    10,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    631
    Likes (Received)
    8670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mkd View Post
    Heidenhain uses python, C# and SQL.
    Why would one want this on a machine tool?
    My mill or lathe does a SQL query in real time in the middle of a cut????
    Python is the new Basic, C# is ....well C plus VB.

    Yes writing standard Gcode and macros and branching are not so nice to read but one learns.
    Added top level is full of traps.
    Bob

  16. Likes cameraman, mhajicek liked this post
  17. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    989
    Likes (Received)
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    Is this true? Where and how?

    We have a iTNC530 in the shop, and I'm pretty damn sure I can't just run a C# program on it!
    I was slightly FOS on that post.
    640s can use SQL from an operator standpoint, C# and Python are used to develops apps and cycle design.
    But, Heidy runs on Linux, so there is that.

  18. Likes boosted liked this post
  19. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    LOL. Appreciate the honesty there. Siemens is the same way (the PLC language is super powerful), and IIRC even the lowly MITS has a much more robust language available in their developer toolbox.

    These modern controllers do have all kinds of power hidden on the developer side. But as somebody who was in the trenches at DMG MORI, I promise you even most MTB's have everything partitioned off such that there are only a couple people who can actually implement stuff. I don't blame them for protecting the equipment/software, but more power would still be nice!

  20. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    near Cleveland
    Posts
    927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    129
    Likes (Received)
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    Python is the new Basic, C# is ....well C plus VB.Bob
    Maybe... but where does Perl fit in?

  21. Likes michiganbuck liked this post
  22. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    8,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machinistrrt View Post
    Maybe... but where does Perl fit in?
    That's for when you want to do web development at the control ...

  23. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    464
    Likes (Received)
    2266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    We could argue semantics about what is or isn't part of G-Code, but when some of us say we would like to see "more sophisticated code", we're looking for that extra power.

    And all I'm saying is that such extra power should NOT need to be the responsibility of G-code.
    If it can call an outside program to be executed, then it has done it's job for your goals, otherwise let it be fully concentrating on machine movements.
    That's all!
    Implementing such features is all on the shoulders of the MTB.
    Unless we're misunderstanding each other, the MTB has full control of the front-end ( UI ), much less of the back-end (Fanuc, Siemens etc ) PLC.

  24. #119
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2740
    Likes (Received)
    1402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machinistrrt View Post
    Maybe... but where does Perl fit in?
    On the handle of your revolver.

  25. Likes mkd, machinistrrt liked this post
  26. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    14,049
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4788
    Likes (Received)
    5067

    Default

    I steered away from this subject but now after 100post might add my two cents
    When it comes to grinders nothing beats a plane-bearing spindle for grinding and smooth surface finish. but they need a good 20 minutes to get warm, they often require more horsepower, and they are more limited in how much you might vary the speed 3500 to 6000 is about all one might wish to vary with loose at low and too tight at high, and many are best at one speed only.

    Nothing beats scraped oil ways in iron, but they take much more labor to produce, need aged and stress-relived heavy castings, need more horsepower to travel (than ball or roller).

    And nobody needs machines that are expected to last 20+ years.

    If one added stepping motors to feeds and ball screws for near-zero end play and CMC controls to an old school old grinder likely would be better than most of the new machines and might cost two or three times more.

    For lathes, if you took a Warner Swasey or Gisholt and added ball screws, stepping motors, and CNC controls they would likely be the world's best lathes.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •