Format 1 vs. Format 2

Bob,

The FADAL control is a POS.

BD as per usual has it right.

Whatever one want to say about a Haas, I don't think it can be argued that the Haas control is not well thought out and well implimented. It can easily be argued that the FADAL control is anything but well implimented and thoughout. It's also far from stable.

About the best that can be said about a FADAL control is that you learn to live with it, it's bugs and your sore fingers from pressing buttons paging through to get where you want go because the FADAL control is so poorly designed.... round and round we go, over and over and over again.

I don't miss using a FADAL.

Perhaps this is why a shop really needs to hire Bill Gibbs... so that he can run the FADAL. :>)

jon

You're right about that. So what? If I did what you did that would make me like you, that is, a follower. No thankyoumaam.

The best. So your right about that too.

And you're right about that. I'm pretty serious about what I do and don't go to work to have a good time. I get all the enjoyment I need by doing what I'm getting paid a lot of money to do to the best of my ability.

As far as getting along with me, I'm about as easy going as people get. Until I'm in the general vicinity of premadonna's that is...

LOL ....sorry Kathy, I made that one up. I don't even believe it would be physically possible :-)

It must suck to be you. LOL

"jon banquer" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:

They already up to ver 17?

Damn, thay are quick. I predict the version will be at 24 soon. less of course the market goes pop.

BTW, I found a free demo for VX right here.......

Bing

BD:

Well if you look back at my original hypothetical problem of wanting to lower the first 12 tools of a 21 tool program - a global -Z fixture offset would lower all the tools and that is not what was wanted.

Mass Modify is just a Fadal time saving feature, if you don't want to make use of it that's, of course, your choice.

I've used the command line option to adjust tool lengths, but like you, I prefer to be viewing the tool table when making adjustments.

We use them for one off odd ball things, but it's a general shop rule to not use Z fixture offsets on the Fadals and to keep the Haas G54 Z offset value set to -1.0000 (to account for our shop standard 1.000 high tool setting block), there are exceptions though.

No diabolical voodoo, just unnecessarily risky IMO.

I didn't discover the "RI" (reinitialize), command in another post, I've used it for years.

Eliminating possible crashes due to -Z fixture offsets are the main reason why it's standard policy in our shop to not use or set any -Z fixture offsets unless there is an overriding reason to do so. We learned many years ago how risky it was, so we have tried to eliminate that risk. I'm not sure why someone would crash their indicator since it seem like it would take longer to type in "G1H#Z0F100." or whatever your particular control likes, than to just hand crank down to your part.

-- BottleBob

Jon:

Well, like I originally said, I believe it's a personal preference issue. People tend to be more comfortable with something they already know than something new and different, even if the new and different item may be easier and save time.

I like the Haas control, but IMO, it's not ALL that much better than the Fadal control. All controls have their own little quirks.

-- BottleBob

But I'm not the one who's reading a.m.c. at 3:25 a.m. Sunday morning LOL

fred

You got something against creatures of the night?

I can do a "mass modify" in a couple of seconds. What if you are using 12 fixture offsets?

Gary:

That is what Fred suggested elsewhere in this thread, and I think it's a very good idea.

-- BottleBob

Hehe...

Quite unlike your typical "premadonna" !!!

Get back in your coffin until the sun goes down :-)

Jon,

Product loyalist,,, hardly. I don't think you'll find many SW loyalists these days.

We use what our customers use, and what exposes us to the best potential market. A small consultantcy can't just switch software, they'd lose customers.

Ed Eaton explained this to you a few months ago, and you appeared to grasp the concept (at the time). Even if I did have VX, I couldn't use it for any official projects, so what's the point.

Mark

BD,

Nope, blaze my own trails, do my own thing, and piss alot of folks off in the process. I've just learned how not to be obnoxious about it. That's why I won't work for big companies any more, to many stupid rules. Figuring out ways to break em took up too much time

Such humility ;>)

Well, I don't know ya exept for what I read here, but there may come a time when you get tired of going to work to fight battles. Don't "really" know that you do now, but that's what it sounds like. I did this for close to twenty five years.

Where I work now we're just a bunch of engineers and designers with a PHD or two. We like each other and treat each other with respect as peers. Each of us brings something different to the table, and we work together to solve technical challenges. I've been there for ten years and still look forward to going to work in the morning. It's fun.

You mean another one don't-cha,,,, ?

Regards

Mark

Bob,

I do this frequently--for the pallet changer machine, running a z axis offset is generally almost an absolute neccessity....

Another thing....on that machine, hard fixturing is pinned to the table--so any given job might use fixture offsets # 8 and # 9 or #39 & 40 and so on....I can often come back 6 months later and my fixture offsets are still in the control....

Also common here ( particularily on long run production ) is to program using tools # 10 through 15 or # 15 througg # 21....and so on--this allows us to get a quickie in and go right back where we left off without even removing any tools from the carousel....

SVL:

We don't have any pallet changer machines, different strokes for different folks.

I think we all interrupt a job for one with a higher priority, and use different fixture offsets and different parts of the tool carousel so as to not disturb the original job that will be continued at a later date. That should pretty much be standard operating procedure in a job-shop environment.

-- BottleBob

Bob,

I don't agree... at all.

1. The Haas control is stable where as the FADAL control is not.

1. The FADAL control has bugs that are not present in the Haas control.

2. The Haas control does not force you to go round and round to get to what you want to do.

1. The Haas control offers editing options that the FADAL control does not.

2. The Haas control offers manual override options that the FADAL does not.

IMO, the Haas control is as stable as a FANUC.

jon

Mark,

There is more to life than money. Money can be very limiting to one's potential creativity.

I've spent a lot of time trying to explain to Ed Eaton why he needs to take a broader approach to CAD. Perhaps one day Ed Eaton will. IMO, Ed is badly limiting his perspective with his SolidWorks only approach.

IMO, you suffer from this very limited perspective yourself .

I've got a lot of time into VX and I intend to keep putting the time in because VX in many ways works the way I think a CAD/CAM package should work. So does thinkID but think3's constant marketing changes and employee turnover make it too frustrating at this time for me.. so in the mean time VX gets all my spare time.

That's too bad because thinkID can do stuff that no other CAD/CAM package can and because it's UI for Global Shape Modeling (now being propagated through out thinkID) have no equal that I'm aware of. Without a doubt thinkID's UI and tools enhance ones experience in ways other systems don't... including VX.

I'm now working directly with a VX employee to get the most out of VX. VX needs better documentation and this limits me at times.... still I'm making good progress.... just wish I had more time... work gets in the way.

Hopefully I can soon pass on my gained knowledge of VX to others who wish to try a CAD/CAM package that has been conceived properly from the get go... unlike SolidWorks, Pro/E, Inventor, SolidEdge, etc.

VX has always been hybrid. VX has always written their own kernel, VX has always had their own CAM. You can't say the same about any of the above.

jon