Shellby429
Member
With so much call for it, I’m finding it difficult to understand why there is no action on this. The early post comments were it will be a simple change if people were interested. Confused
automatic switch to manual tool changer
- Thread starter diegocolonnello
- Start date
One forum member, @zombieengineer, created a great summary and resource for feature requests made over time. He presented a system that might be used to prioritize the implementation of such requests. I think you may find the content interesting and relevant - https://forums.masso.com.au/threads/improving-feature-requests.2320/
I recently provided a summary of the last year's firmware updates, and I personally find that there have been many important improvements brought to users. This in addition to the new hardware developments.
I was one of the people who requested this topic's feature, so I can relate to your wanting it implemented.
Without any understanding of, or experience with, machining firmware and software development, here are my thoughts on why we have not yet seen it realized (in no particular order):
I recently provided a summary of the last year's firmware updates, and I personally find that there have been many important improvements brought to users. This in addition to the new hardware developments.
I was one of the people who requested this topic's feature, so I can relate to your wanting it implemented.
Without any understanding of, or experience with, machining firmware and software development, here are my thoughts on why we have not yet seen it realized (in no particular order):
- the development team may be small, so any updates may just take longer
- time is most likely split between software and hardware improvements - there have been a lot
- time is split between the various solutions Masso provides - mill, lathe, and plasma
- they have different users/customers - hobby, business, OEM, current, future - that each have their own needs and perhaps priority (see @zombieengineer's post) at any given time
- some features may be more complex - impact multiple aspects of the software's functioning - and thus will require more time
- there may already be a long term road map for software updates, and features may be in a queue that we are unaware of
- it is possible that a 'group' of feature requests involve interrelated changes to a particular aspect or functional part of the software, and so perhaps the development team waits to implement them together for efficiency or some technical need
- there will always be bug fixes that require attention
- it takes time to get it right the first time (I am new to machining, but am a member of many CNC related forums where more often than not companies put out software updates that are plagued with often major issues - I have not personally experienced that with Masso)
zombieengineer
ZombieEngineer
The zombie is currently locked away in a server "crypt" till the end of next week (need to deliver a project to site for my day job - chemical plant operator training simulators).
The "Improving Feature Requests" is based on what is used at my day job for the annual "feature prioritorisation" to reduce the wish list down to the top 20 candidates to review (developers to provide a cost estimate and then debate which ones make the cut - some are "would really be nice but not at that price").
The challenge is there could be big ticket items in the development queue that MASSO does not want to talk about as they can be game changers for their target market - for example the G3 Touch would of required significant amount of hardware development that pushed back software development. If you think the G3 Touch is simply a G3 controller + Touch Screen + Housing then I would strongly recommend you take a look at what it takes to get an injection mould made (not trivial or cheap).
The start of last year the electronics supply chain was somewhere between god awful to non-existent. Some Cisco network switches had lead times of about 400 days at the start of last year (needed a couple for a project, fortunately the customer had a spare). Things have improved however they have not returned to pre-COVID availability.
The "Improving Feature Requests" is based on what is used at my day job for the annual "feature prioritorisation" to reduce the wish list down to the top 20 candidates to review (developers to provide a cost estimate and then debate which ones make the cut - some are "would really be nice but not at that price").
The challenge is there could be big ticket items in the development queue that MASSO does not want to talk about as they can be game changers for their target market - for example the G3 Touch would of required significant amount of hardware development that pushed back software development. If you think the G3 Touch is simply a G3 controller + Touch Screen + Housing then I would strongly recommend you take a look at what it takes to get an injection mould made (not trivial or cheap).
The start of last year the electronics supply chain was somewhere between god awful to non-existent. Some Cisco network switches had lead times of about 400 days at the start of last year (needed a couple for a project, fortunately the customer had a spare). Things have improved however they have not returned to pre-COVID availability.
mc2conradie
New member
So G3 supports tools from 1 to 100.
We have an 8 slot tool changer, so that functionality means nothing, it may just as well be tool 1 to 8.
When entering tool data for say tool 9, I cannot deselect the tool currently assigned slot 4 and just assign that slot to tool 9 (Slots are greyed out in the tool table).
How difficult can it be to program in such a way that, when calling for a tool number, Masso checks which slot (1 to 8 for us) is assigned to that tool and then pick it.
This would make it possible to populate the tool table with as many tools as one wants and assign the same slot to more than one tool. Just before the job I can then put the tool in the slot as per the tool table and on running T9 M06 voila, the tool will be picked. If the tool has been newly installed in the chuck, one would of course need to zero it.
We have different users on our machine, all with mostly different tool requirements and we change users on a daily basis.
Now I have to delete the tool data of one (or more) of tools 1 to 8 and enter the new tool's (tools') data.
At the moment it is a PITA to set up the tools for a new job.
I heard a rumour that a solution to this is under development, if true, when will it be implemented?
We have an 8 slot tool changer, so that functionality means nothing, it may just as well be tool 1 to 8.
When entering tool data for say tool 9, I cannot deselect the tool currently assigned slot 4 and just assign that slot to tool 9 (Slots are greyed out in the tool table).
How difficult can it be to program in such a way that, when calling for a tool number, Masso checks which slot (1 to 8 for us) is assigned to that tool and then pick it.
This would make it possible to populate the tool table with as many tools as one wants and assign the same slot to more than one tool. Just before the job I can then put the tool in the slot as per the tool table and on running T9 M06 voila, the tool will be picked. If the tool has been newly installed in the chuck, one would of course need to zero it.
We have different users on our machine, all with mostly different tool requirements and we change users on a daily basis.
Now I have to delete the tool data of one (or more) of tools 1 to 8 and enter the new tool's (tools') data.
At the moment it is a PITA to set up the tools for a new job.
I heard a rumour that a solution to this is under development, if true, when will it be implemented?
mc2conradie
New member
Hi Peter,
Thanks for responding so quickly at this time of the year.
Reading the tool changer logic on page 799 of the documentation, we have a linear type 2 ATC.
Reading the descriptions on page 804 of the documentation, we have type 1.
The photos look the same to me, I must be missing something somewhere.
We run Masso ver 5.03.
I have been using both Fusion 360 (free version) and VCarve Pro (licenced version).
I hope this is what you asked for.
Regards Manie
Thanks for responding so quickly at this time of the year.
Reading the tool changer logic on page 799 of the documentation, we have a linear type 2 ATC.
Reading the descriptions on page 804 of the documentation, we have type 1.
The photos look the same to me, I must be missing something somewhere.
We run Masso ver 5.03.
I have been using both Fusion 360 (free version) and VCarve Pro (licenced version).
I hope this is what you asked for.
Regards Manie
Last edited:
I have a linear tool rack and use type 2 but the pick and place logic.
I recently set up a 'quick ATC' position at the very front of my work area for a particular job I am doing. I am doing multiple small 3D carves on a fixture plate at the front of my CNC router. To save time, I gave the 4-5 end mills used for this job, different slot numbers but these slots all share the same X/Y tool change position.
I wondered if you could do the same. If you are using the software version that limits slots to 30, you could have at least 3 (3X8=24) sets of tools that use your 8 slot linear tool changer. Or, if you have a few end mills used for most jobs, then these could keep the same position/slots #, with the others forming 'sets' that could be switched out.
I recently set up a 'quick ATC' position at the very front of my work area for a particular job I am doing. I am doing multiple small 3D carves on a fixture plate at the front of my CNC router. To save time, I gave the 4-5 end mills used for this job, different slot numbers but these slots all share the same X/Y tool change position.
I wondered if you could do the same. If you are using the software version that limits slots to 30, you could have at least 3 (3X8=24) sets of tools that use your 8 slot linear tool changer. Or, if you have a few end mills used for most jobs, then these could keep the same position/slots #, with the others forming 'sets' that could be switched out.
Not hard at all as the linear tool changer has done this since Day 1
You can set up all 100 tools and and then assign them to any of the 8 tool slot as you need.
Any tool can be assigned to any slot.
What you cannot do is assign 2 tools to the same tool slot.
Once a tool is assigned to a tool slot the tool slot becomes unavailable and is grayed out in the list until it becomes available again.
To free a tool slot look down the list of tools in the F4 screen and see the tool allocated to the required slot.
Open the tool by double clicking on it and set the "Tool in Slot" to "Not Loaded"
Press Save.
This will make the slot available and it can then be assigned to any tool as needed.
Cheers Peter
Shellby429
Member
I have everything to do my ATC but have opted to stick with manual change until this can be addressed. I keep refreshing back to the first response from masso support that quotes, it’s an easy fix but let’s wait and see what response we receive. Given the interest in the thread alone and the simple implementation, surely 3 years later it could be implemented.
This is my one main struggle with an otherwise great platform. The simple ATC was the main reason I brought it. I obviously paid the extra for the ATC spindle as well which I’m not fully utilising either.
The other main reason I went with Masso was the “support”. I must unfortunately say, I’m not overly sold on this either and this thread is a perfect example. I don’t think the support is what it was cracked up to be initially.
This inclusion would top off the package and complete the otherwise great platform for time poor DIY builders such as myself which is where I assume Masso have pitched this product.
This is my one main struggle with an otherwise great platform. The simple ATC was the main reason I brought it. I obviously paid the extra for the ATC spindle as well which I’m not fully utilising either.
The other main reason I went with Masso was the “support”. I must unfortunately say, I’m not overly sold on this either and this thread is a perfect example. I don’t think the support is what it was cracked up to be initially.
This inclusion would top off the package and complete the otherwise great platform for time poor DIY builders such as myself which is where I assume Masso have pitched this product.
@Shellby429
But it has been included in the current V5.100 beta version for users to test.
So far we have had no negative feedback on the manual tool change added into the linear tool changer.
It will be a while before the Beta is stable enough for daily use and there are a lot more features to be added that others have requested but the request has been heard and implemented for initial user testing.
Is this not the feature that you were requesting?
But it has been included in the current V5.100 beta version for users to test.
So far we have had no negative feedback on the manual tool change added into the linear tool changer.
It will be a while before the Beta is stable enough for daily use and there are a lot more features to be added that others have requested but the request has been heard and implemented for initial user testing.
Is this not the feature that you were requesting?
"for example, if i have an 8 tool magazine and my code calls for tool 9, it automatically goes to the Manual tool change position for it to be inserted by an operator...."
I think this is what I was describing in #27 above.
But when you say..."when a tool needed is not on the list of tools..." do you mean you do not have it recorded in the Masso tool table?
I think this is what I was describing in #27 above.
But when you say..."when a tool needed is not on the list of tools..." do you mean you do not have it recorded in the Masso tool table?
Shellby429
Member
Thanks Peter. I was not aware of this update.
Where do I get more information about this? I’m not overly familiar with your reference of this not being stable for daily use.
I assume version 5.100 beta version is available to download? Can you let me know any risk associated with this download and what I should be aware of here?
Sorry your reference of not being stable is confusing me and unsure if I should download and test or not.
Mark
A Beta version means it is a test version and will most likely contain bugs.
The Beta version was released on the 20th of October and all users were emailed.
It is available in myWorkshop for those who wish to be Beta testers.
The current list of reported software bugs can be found in the MASSO Lab section of the Forum.
I cannot answer this for you. Trying it now or waiting for the next Beta release or even testing it at all is entirely up to you and is a decision that only you can make.
If you do not feel comfortable testing software I recommend that you do not do it.
I may have spoken too soon about bugs in the tool change as I see one was reported just before Christmas which I missed.
Cheers Peter
mc2conradie
New member
Absolutely fantastic Peter. Thank you for this little detail I missed. I'm going to play with it right away.
Great response!
Manie
mc2conradie
New member
You bet I'm going to try this at some stage, thanks.