G41 G42 Problem
- Chris54636
- Offline
- New Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2
- Thank you received: 0
17 Feb 2025 14:51 #321838
by Chris54636
G41 G42 Problem was created by Chris54636
Hi, normaly i only read in this forum, but now i have to ask about the G41/G42 funktion.
There are many discussions about whether G41/G42 calculates the approach route correctly or not.
I don't want to pursue these discussions any further, but am more interested in a solution.
It is possible that LinuxCNC can approach correctly with a sufficiently large radius. Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out how to work around the problem if I do not have enough space. I would like to mill a Ø5 hole with an Ø4 end mill.
How is it possible to mill the hole with linuxcnc and G41/G42 without already activating the G41/G42 above the part?
All CAM systems known to me only support the normal G41/G42 but not the Linuxcnc version. I have already tried to convert the coordinates in PP, but so far without success. Does anyone know a solution for this?
As I am not the only one with this problem, it would be advantageous if linuxcnc supported both versions. Maybe a G41.2/G42.2 could be the solution.
Best Chris
There are many discussions about whether G41/G42 calculates the approach route correctly or not.
I don't want to pursue these discussions any further, but am more interested in a solution.
It is possible that LinuxCNC can approach correctly with a sufficiently large radius. Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out how to work around the problem if I do not have enough space. I would like to mill a Ø5 hole with an Ø4 end mill.
How is it possible to mill the hole with linuxcnc and G41/G42 without already activating the G41/G42 above the part?
All CAM systems known to me only support the normal G41/G42 but not the Linuxcnc version. I have already tried to convert the coordinates in PP, but so far without success. Does anyone know a solution for this?
As I am not the only one with this problem, it would be advantageous if linuxcnc supported both versions. Maybe a G41.2/G42.2 could be the solution.
Best Chris
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cakeslob
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 867
- Thank you received: 254
19 Feb 2025 03:30 #321959
by cakeslob
Replied by cakeslob on topic G41 G42 Problem
its in imperial though
5mm hole, 4mm endmill .001" or something in tooltable diameter
5mm hole, 4mm endmill .001" or something in tooltable diameter
%
O0001 (5mm_w)
(MCX FILE - T)
(PROGRAM - 5mm_w.NC)
(DATE - FEB-18-2025)
(TIME - 5:57 PM)
(T3 - 1/8 FLAT ENDMILL - H3 - D3 - D0.1575")
(1/8 CIRCLEMILL_FINISH_WEAR)
N3 T3 ( 1/8 FLAT ENDMILL)
M06
G00 G17 G90 G54 X0. Y0. S9168 M03
G43 H3 Z.25 M08
Z.1
G01 Z-.5 F10.
G41 D3 X.0098 Y.0098 F5.
G03 X0. Y.0197 I-.0098 J0.
Y-.0197 I0. J-.0197
Y.0197 I0. J.0197
Y-.0197 I0. J-.0197
Y.0197 I0. J.0197
Y-.0197 I0. J-.0197
Y.0197 I0. J.0197
X-.0098 Y.0098 I0. J-.0099
G01 G40 X0. Y0.
G00 Z.25
M30
%
The following user(s) said Thank You: Chris54636
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Chris54636
- Offline
- New Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2
- Thank you received: 0
19 Feb 2025 12:40 #321979
by Chris54636
Replied by Chris54636 on topic G41 G42 Problem
Hmmm, you meen i can change the diameter in the tool table from 4mm to 1mm.
If i also reduce the diameter in the program by 3mm, it is possible to use G41.
Yes, this is a possibility, but not a nice one, where mistakes can easily happen.
I understand that many people want to keep the current function of G41, but what's wrong with a 2nd function that works like all other controllers and doesn't require any tricks?
Best Chris
If i also reduce the diameter in the program by 3mm, it is possible to use G41.
Yes, this is a possibility, but not a nice one, where mistakes can easily happen.
I understand that many people want to keep the current function of G41, but what's wrong with a 2nd function that works like all other controllers and doesn't require any tricks?
Best Chris
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Aciera
-
- Offline
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4305
- Thank you received: 1908
19 Feb 2025 15:44 #321994
by Aciera
If you can provide the code changes needed for this in a pull request on github then I'm sure there would be a fair bit of interest. If you are hoping for others to implement it then that is likely a different story.
Replied by Aciera on topic G41 G42 Problem
I understand that many people want to keep the current function of G41, but what's wrong with a 2nd function that works like all other controllers and doesn't require any tricks?
If you can provide the code changes needed for this in a pull request on github then I'm sure there would be a fair bit of interest. If you are hoping for others to implement it then that is likely a different story.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.085 seconds