PathPilot on Parallel port

don't panic guys , i have this under control .

i just want to make a it an easy transition , rather than a kludge as it has been , that way it solves it for always , and allows updates later
hopefully get that done today , it's nothing to do with the config files .

I'm still trying to find a kludge solution in the meantime.

Mike

cncbasher wrote:

don't panic guys , i have this under control .

i just want to make a it an easy transition , rather than a kludge as it has been , that way it solves it for always , and allows updates later
hopefully get that done today , it's nothing to do with the config files .

I like that sound of that, my install isn't working completely and I look forward to reimaging the hard drive again to get a fully working copy. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Cheers
Bruce

cncbasher

don't panic guys , i have this under control .

i just want to make a it an easy transition , rather than a kludge as it has been , that way it solves it for always , and allows updates later
hopefully get that done today , it's nothing to do with the config files

I will second that. I too look forward to your proposed easy transition, It will be well worth waiting for. There are probably many more of us praying for this than you realise.

I'm still in deep water with attempting to get Pathpilot to work through the Parallel port. I tried all variations on racedirector's posts, but no joy so far. The use of a 5i25 and a BOB would be an expensive overkill for a simple desktop mill with manual spindle control, especially as I have two machines to do.

Regards
Mike

What is it about PP that makes you want it more than other GUIs?

A good place to start is to read the Tormach Pathpilot White Paper. The value of a carefully designed and carefully laid out Human/Machine Interface is very well explained. Pathpilot would appear to offer a GUI tailored to the machine operator's perspective (who may not be a computer specialist). Everything is both logically and conveniently laid out for the task of producing CNC machined parts. Take the File handling tab as an example; the data source, display and editing functions are all there on one screen and provide a natural and obvious workflow to the machine operator . Then there is also the conversational programming, again tailored to the machine operator's needs. Agreed, most of this functionality already exists with the Axis GUI. However Axis is not so well laid out from a machine operator's point of view compared to Pathpilot.

The only thing I cannot use from Pathpilot is the rigid tapping function. That is a limitation of my CNC mill, which does not have a servo controlled spindle.

Mike

you don't need a servo spindle for rigid tapping. All you need is a spindle that can be reversed and a spindle encoder (possibly home-made)

Surely, with a controllable motor and a spindle encoder you have all the hardware needed to create a servo spindle?

Unfortunately my Emco F1 desktop mill will not allow access to the top of the spindle to fit an encoder, so I am stumped.

Mike

I have looked at Path Pilot as well, and it is pretty well laid out. I was involved with the AHA Bridgeport BOSS control retrofits years ago, and we spent time discussing the fact that they were programmers, and not machinists, hence the control worked, but it was 4 or 5 keystrokes to accomplish the cycle start. I run OKUMA, FANUC, MAZAK and Seimans controls at work, and had years with FADAL and HAAS. One of the best features of OKUMA is that the controls all the way back to the OSP5000 and up to the current models are familiar to any operator. FANUC's GUI is different from one model to another, as is MAZAK. FADAL has some interesting features, as well as quirks, and HAAS is a consistent and intuitive control. I will be using Axis for my Anilam Crusader II conversion, and then look at others when I have it working. Path Pilot looks like a good product, and I talked to them the other day about whether they would be moving to a servo system for their machines. They indicated that they are not, but it would seem to be a worthwhile challenge to get it working with a servo system and the Mesa cards.

MikeT

as Andy says you only need and encoder of sorts , with 2 sensors , one for each rev and one to divide the rev's to say 120 divisions , easy enough to do , but sometimes can be a bit
awkward , i'm sure an emco can be done , search the web , i.m sure i have seen it ..