X-Axis Not Behaving as Desired

Home Forums TinyG TinyG Support X-Axis Not Behaving as Desired

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11160
    Vex
    Member

    I’ve finally gotten my CNC mill up and running (again), but I seem to be having an issue with TinyG arbitrarily adding movement in the x-axis. If I didn’t know any better I would say it was backlash, but the measured backlash is minimal (~0.0005in).

    I designed up and posted a simple operation to create 4 triangular thru-pockets within a rectangle in fusion. The diagonals should be uniform in thickness. When the operation is complete, the result is not as designed, but only seems to affect the x-axis. On the two vertical cuts, for instance, it appears to be cut on the diagonal relative to the previously cut edge. If it were a tramming issue, both the previously cut edge and this vertical would still be parallel. The measured difference is 0.5mm.

    There’s other issues with the operation, but all seem to be related back to this x-axis issue. I’m thinking there might be some bad-mojo occuring between the G code provided by fusion in some of the operations (namely 2D contour and adaptive operations).

    The following options are what is set in the fusion post dialogue:

    (Built-in) Allow helical moves     No
    (Built-in) High feedrate mapping     Preserve Rapid Movement
    (Built-in) High feedrate     0
    (Built-in) Maximum circular radius     1000
    (Built-in) Minimum chord length     0.25
    (Built-in) Minimum circular radius    0.01
    (Built-in) Tolerance     0.002
    Optional stop    Yes
    Preload tool     No
    Separate words with space     Yes
    Sequence number increment     5
    Start sequence number     10
    Use sequence numbers     No
    Use active spindle     Yes
    Use G28     No
    Use M6     No
    Radius arcs     No
    Write machine      Yes
    Write tool list     Yes

    What is needed from me to help me troubleshoot this issue?

    #11162
    cmcgrath5035
    Moderator

    I have no Fusion knowledge and some of the terminology you use is not familiar.
    I have seen similar issues reported when folks were (generically) doing 2D profiling.

    Your issues may be related to an arc rendering precision issue, if your G code has a lot of short XZ or YZ G2 or G3 commands.

    Is your Gcode running in inch mode?
    Try regenerating it in mm mode, that often helps

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by cmcgrath5035.
    #11164
    Vex
    Member

    It does have quite a number of G3 commands (and is compiled/run in mm):

    (2D CONTOUR1)
    G0 X-1.207 Y-3.197
    Z15.24
    Z5.08
    G1 Z1. F125.
    Z-2.731
    X-1.199 Z-2.801
    X-1.175 Z-2.868
    X-1.137 Z-2.928
    X-1.087 Z-2.979
    X-1.027 Z-3.017
    X-0.96 Z-3.04
    X-0.889 Z-3.048
    X-0.572 F150.
    G2 X-0.254 Y-3.515 I0. J-0.317
    G1 Y-47.13
    G3 X3.365 Y-50.749 I3.619 J0.
    G1 X22.162
    G3 X25.781 Y-47.13 I0. J3.619
    G1 Y-2.934
    G3 X22.162 Y0.686 I-3.619 J0.
    G1 X3.365
    G3 X-0.254 Y-2.934 I0. J-3.62
    G1 Y-3.515
    G2 X-0.572 Y-3.832 I-0.317 J0.
    G1 X-0.889
    X-0.96 Z-3.04
    X-1.027 Z-3.017
    X-1.087 Z-2.979
    X-1.137 Z-2.928
    X-1.175 Z-2.868
    X-1.199 Z-2.801
    X-1.207 Z-2.731
    G0 Z15.24

    Which just leaves the question: How do I fix it?

    (Adaptive and the final 2D contour has quite the number of calls to G2 and G3).

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by Vex.
    #11166
    cmcgrath5035
    Moderator

    I’ll assume you are running tinyG FW 440.20, that is the most tested version.

    There is no complete ‘fix’.
    First I would suggest you run an experiment to verify this is the root cause.

    The only known full(?) fix is to tell Fusion to not use G2 or G3 arc commands, which causes it to generate very short G2 linear moves.
    This slows down the milling process and can result in very large Gcode files, but does work.
    I am not sure how you set Fusion to do this.

    If an all-linear-move file is way too big, perhaps you can generate a sub set of your complete job to test, first with G2/G3, then with just G2 moves.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by cmcgrath5035.
    #11187
    Vex
    Member

    Update (since my last one didn’t seem to take for some reason): Swapping out G2/G3 for G1 movements fixed most of my problems. The other bit was increasing the min radius to Cutter Diameter/2 + 0.01in.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.