We have an e1850V that we ONLY run EIA programs on. It seems we've been working around a lot of little issues with the tool data pages. The icing on the cake was when we almost crashed a very expensive aero engine case because the M19 S1800 didn't orient the spindle properly. This particular program has run about 50 times before, and we have other programs with the same string of events:
M111
M19S1800
M110
Now Mazak's solution to the issue was to buy the 'flash tool' option or move to EIA/ISO offsets. Why???? When I program a M19, I expect it to orient the turning tool how I program. I really don't think they are fully willing to admit a bug, so they want us to define each turning tools orientation in 'TOOL DATA'. I'm of the belief that the less the operator has to intervene and set-up the tool data, the better. Not only that, our operators are sloppy with tool definition, and they'll define an endmill as a reamer. Well, the 'reamer' doesn't have all the same fields as the endmill, and I can't check the diameter of the tool. Besides, a turning tool will act different in G43 than an endmill will! Plus the EIA offset page is sooooooo much simpler and easier to work with.
We're kinda tired of the little work arounds, and want to move to EIA/ISO offsets. Our Mazak rep is very much against this move.
Are there people out there using EIA/ISO offsets and have used both? Which do more people prefer and why?
Thank you. |
