Move Increment to Move Point Conversion Script?

Henniger123

I don't understand the use of the bMOVE_CLEARP variable? You create it, tie it to a condition, then hard set the variable as false. You even devoted a whole block to doing so, with a confusing lone "end if" command. So, clearance planes appear to be completely ignored.

What do you mean by fancy alignments?

what happens if there is a moving point, flow control command, or avoidence move preceding the Move increment?

I'm guessing to make this work with imperial one would just divide the vDESTI_POINT_X, vDESTI_POINT_Y, and vDESTI_POINT_Z variables by 25.4 before passing them into the new command?



This is great work, I won't be able to test it until probably at least Sunday, As I will write a measurement routine whose sole purpose is to test this. This won't be difficult, it's just a matter of fitting it around production.


I still don't understand why it must be so complicated? Couldn't one simply execute each command one after another, testing afterwards if the previous command was an incremental move, and if so, reading the probe position and inputting the coordinates into a move point? This would have the same problems with flow control but would solve the problems with the clearance cube, clearance planes, avoidance moves, duplicate moves, alignments, ect. Someone, please explain to me the error in my train of thought.

Henniger123

I don't understand the use of the bMOVE_CLEARP variable? You create it, tie it to a condition, then hard set the variable as false. You even devoted a whole block to doing so, with a confusing lone "end if" command. So, clearance planes appear to be completely ignored.

What do you mean by fancy alignments?

what happens if there is a moving point, flow control command, or avoidence move preceding the Move increment?

I'm guessing to make this work with imperial one would just divide the vDESTI_POINT_X, vDESTI_POINT_Y, and vDESTI_POINT_Z variables by 25.4 before passing them into the new command?



This is great work, I won't be able to test it until probably at least Sunday, As I will write a measurement routine whose sole purpose is to test this. This won't be difficult, it's just a matter of fitting it around production.


I still don't understand why it must be so complicated? Couldn't one simply execute each command one after another, testing afterwards if the previous command was an incremental move, and if so, reading the probe position and inputting the coordinates into a move point? This would have the same problems with flow control but would solve the problems with the clearance cube, clearance planes, avoidance moves, duplicate moves, alignments, ect. Someone, please explain to me the error in my train of thought.