SOLVED - UGS2 / Post processor move up/right after carve - why?

I am having a couple of issues I would like to understand better.

I use Fusion 360 to design and the following post processor: (OpenbuildGRBL.cps)

UGS 2 New Platform as sender and a test carve used:.

GRBL-25x25x3mm.nc (29.1 KB)

Workflow:
1 - Home the machine (top/left)
2 - Jog to work zero, reset zero
3 - Open file and hit carve
4 - after completion the router retract and move top/right

The same design with Easel PP and Easel as sender will retract to safety height and maintain X/Y0 after the carve from the same F360 design.

I assume it is the PP used that define this, and should show in the code but I didnt manage to understand the ending g-code.

My questions are simply the following,and my search came up empty:
Is the top/right position after ended carve defined in the PP? If so, how could I change it?
The safety height is high and I would like to reduce this, another change in the PP or is that a F360 specific detail?

I’m going to tag in the guys from Autodesk. Hold tight.

@Garin

I shot the two main contacts we work with an email. This year they are working with us a bit closer to help get questions like this answered quicker. I sent them the link but it’s 2 hours earlier in California so they might not be at their computers yet.

Thanks Zach.

I suspect the main issue is the PP and how to adapt that to my needs, not a specific F360 issue really.
UGS only do what its told :wink:

1 Like

Hey there,

It’s hard to say what’s going on without seeing a simulation of the toolpaths in Fusion 360. With this, we’ll be able to see all the moves that Fusion 360 is making, and hopefully be able to identify if the issue is in Fusion 360 or the Post Processor.

My hunch is that the issue is with the Post Processor. Can you right-click on your toolpath / setup in Fusion 360 and choose “Simulate”? That should allow us to see all of the moves that Fusion 360 is making, and see if it’s sending the cutter to the upper-right after the cut.

-Taylor

1 Like

G53 Z-10
M5
G4 P0.8
G53 X-10 Y-10
M30

Most likely a post processor issue.

Mine aswell but I am note sure how to deal with it / look for :wink:

The same design exported with Easel.cps will work as intended with Easel as sender.
Same design exported with OpenbuilsGRBL with UGS as sender send the router to top/right.

I won’t mind adapting the PP to suit / mimic the Easel end of carve X/Y. Do you know what I should look for?

This snippet of cps-code seem to suggest I can edit these settings in F360, will be looking into that after the kids are in bed:

Okay, this is what the options PP provide so apparently these values => the XYZ move to 10mm off from Machine zero which is top/right. Correct?

Correct

Excellent, new stuff learned :smiley:

Sounds like you want to avoid the g53, machine coordinate, commands at the end.
You could edit the onClose() function at the end.
Change this:


To this:
EDIT - Couldn’t get code formatted…attached in txt
onClose.txt (799 Bytes)

At the end of job, spindle raises to Z10, spindle stops, returns to X0Y0

1 Like

If I got this right I can define the end-point here in F360 PP pane and use whatever negative XYZ-number, like Y-10 X-180 Z-10 which would make the router go to top middle after the carve, or any point I define within the negative work space.

My main issue was I didn’t understand where the motion instructions originated from, wasn’t sure it was a UGS bug or not since I just started to use UGS two days ago :slight_smile:

@HaldorLonningdal Are you running an X-Carve?

No, plain Arduino CNC.

Careful how much you talk about negative workspace around here. This forum might not be a friendly place for those of us that prefer our homes in the back right.
:wink:

1 Like

Hi all,
I am the author of this PP.
Please read the Wiki page https://github.com/Strooom/GRBL-Post-Processor/wiki/Anatomy-of-output-of-the-Post-Processor and I think it will answer all your questions.
If you would still have questions, justvask and I’ll be more than happy to extend that page.
Tnx

2 Likes

@Strooom

It all became clear now :yum:
Thank you for that write-up, to bad I missed it earlier :wink:

@strooom and @TaylorStein thanks for jumping in to help @HaldorLonningdal on this one.