I'm currently working with an Absolute Arm 85 equipped with the RS6 scanner. I was wondering if it is possible to create a program that calls for the part to be scanned, then flipped mid execution in order to account for tolerances of the entire part. Basically I am trying to scan and check an entire part in one chunk of code rather than having to perform two separate scans.
I'm currently working with an Absolute Arm 85 equipped with the RS6 scanner. I was wondering if it is possible to create a program that calls for the part to be scanned, then flipped mid execution in order to account for tolerances of the entire part. Basically I am trying to scan and check an entire part in one chunk of code rather than having to perform two separate scans.
Yes.
If you need stuff from side 1 to be related to side 2, you'll use an equate alignment.
If stuff doesn't need to be related from side to side, you can use viewsets to control the model in your gdw & cram multiple programs into one measurement routine.
Equate alignment is not what you want for an arm, it's called LEAPFROG.
And as far as I know, you can't scan, leapfrog, then continue scanning in the same COP, you'll have to make a second cop, after the leapfrog. BUT, you should be able to make a 3rd cop out of the 2 scanned cops.
leapfrog is pretty 'easy'. but, it will depend on the part actually. Easiest leapfrog to do is to hot-glue 3 tooling balls to the part, use them for the leapfrog.
Equate alignment is not what you want for an arm, it's called LEAPFROG.
And as far as I know, you can't scan, leapfrog, then continue scanning in the same COP, you'll have to make a second cop, after the leapfrog. BUT, you should be able to make a 3rd cop out of the 2 scanned cops.
Why not Equate Matt? What does Leapfrog achieve that equate doesn't?
Just started using an arm - equate seems to work fine (I remember Leapfrog from years ago but haven't used it yet) when I've tried it.
Leapfrog was 'built/designed' for the arms, equate is just a carry over from normal Pcdmis. Leapfrog (IMO) is just quicker & easier than equate. Maybe that is because I learned equate before they "made it better" with some new version (can't remember when/what version it was) and I stopped using equate.
Leapfrog is a lot more "free form" than equate. As in, you can program in a leapfrog alignment for part/arm being moved, and it does not have to be the same from part to part, just the same order. As in, the use of 3 ball bearings glued to the part for the move. 1-2-3 balls, 1-2-3 balls, programmed in. You'll never get them in the same place on the next part, but leapfrog doesn't care, 1-2-3 balls, 1-2-3 balls, just measure in the same order from before to after.
