Onefinity QCW Tool Holder Heads Up!

[Briantopping]

Folks, something good to know as you plan out your ATC setup on a Onefinity. Looks like the design changed somewhat recently on the outside rails and the QCW tool holders will no longer fit. Bummer!

It also seems (but the situation is fluid) that 1F can’t provide the old rails for those who want them.

I started a thread on the 1F forums at QCW Rail Swap Thread - Quick Change Wasteboard Frame - Onefinity CNC Forum for those who want to swap their rails within the community. I’m hoping it will find some wheels. I’m hoping there are going to be enough QCW owners with the older rails that want to recover the additional spoilboard space provided by the new rails. If we can match those with folks who are in the opposite situation, we might be able to resolve the situation amongst ourselves?

[Chris]

Send us some measurements. I, at least, didn’t know there was a redesign.

[Briantopping]

Sorry for the delay here, I had to take apart the QCW to get measurements. Here is the cross section, please let me know if I can answer any questions. I think the hole locations for the wasteboard is online.

[Chris]

Hey Brian,
What is the picture belows thickness?
Also in what way does it not work? Your cross section looks the same as ours. As seen here

The qcw racks just squeeze the rails, the only thing I can see why it wouldnt is if that gap is too small / too large.

[Briantopping]

@Chris

What is the picture belows thickness?

0.122" according to the diagram, I’ll have to check it in the morning.

@Chris

Also in what way does it not work? Your cross section looks the same as ours. As seen here

That’s a very different rail. In the one you have there and in this picture from a video Daniel had done, the T-track is centered on the box (also the red circle on this picture). My track is very much not centered. And note the sketch I provided should be flipped horizontally for the left side.

That’s no longer possible with the new rail, the gantry bearings are ~1/4" off the lip you were requesting measurement on. I assumed that the tubular rails were drilled at the same position but it seems like that must have changed as well.

All this gave me an idea though, I’ll post it as I get it working…

[Chris]

Ok. Let me know the results of your idea.

The left slat did need to be removed (not installed). I don’t see why it wouldn’t work opposite the t-track side unless theres machine travel limits, but I’ll mock it up in the morning and see how it works

[Chris]

Hey Brian,
I just built it out, and I’m sitting here looking at it, yep thats different, but why would they do that, is something that alludes me.
You said that it was flipped horizontally.
Does that mean that the t-track is on the Y1 / left side. If they continue that orientation all the way through, it looks like the right side might be the way to go.

New on the Right, Old on the left. They’ll still work but on the opposite side of the t-track.

[Briantopping]

Hi Chris, thanks as always for the response.

You are correct about the orientation of the rails for the left side and size in your screenshot from last week. To my comprehension, the lower box section and the flat are the same dimensions, but the t-track has been moved to the left as oriented in your pictures. If that’s true, it will still fit opposite to the track as you show since the flat still has the same overhang distance from the lower box. And since the lower box has not changed location, that means the bits are in the same translation from the edge of the table.

Part of my challenge started when I built the QCW and had those rails mounted incorrectly (rotated 180º around the Z axis). In either orientation though, there isn’t enough room to put the bit holders between the Y bearing and outer rail. And no matter what, that last slat is essential when cutting 4x4 panels, so I’m not going to use this type of fixation.

@Chris

Ok. Let me know the results of your idea.

Well it’s coming along for sure. I need to figure out some programming on the MASSO tool logic as I’ve probably just cracked three holders and two bits in the last few hours while trying to find a path for the holders that does not require the spindle to travel to the far side of the bed every time it needs a new bit. It would be amazing if I could program the bit holder tool path and I’m sure I’ll be able to someday, but may be limited until then…

[Chris]

@Briantopping

You are correct about the orientation of the rails for the left side and size in your screenshot

So does this mean its a choice between using the far left t-track or putting the holders in the way, or that they moved the t-track further inside the table in which case it doesn’t affect the usage of the qcw racks.

@Briantopping

when cutting 4x4 panels

You’re going to need to get creative to get a full 4x4 space. (have you seen this post from MRD, slide in logic and I have those here Programming of ATC in Masso)
The alternative to using a sliding logic is a removable one, however I think that’ll make the problem worse not better. I personally don’t see a way to not lose ~1.25" at the minimum unless using a slide in logic. I don’t have a QCW so I dont know how much is actually lost when that last slat is removed.

Sometimes things just don’t work in our workflow as we’d expect them to. Bought a folding buttstock adapter for a pew pew, and I was thinking I’d be able to bring the shelf down. I didn’t take into account that the sq inches used for the one firearm would increase which reduced the need to bring the shelf down in the first place.

@Briantopping

figure out some programming on the MASSO tool logic

What are you trying to do?
As far as I’m aware there is limited travel logic available, basically drop in and slide in with direct path rapid movements in-between.

[Briantopping]

@Chris

So does this mean its a choice between using the far left t-track or putting the holders in the way, or that they moved the t-track further inside the table in which case it doesn’t affect the usage of the qcw racks.

This is a pretty adequate shot of what’s going on with the outer rail:

The width of that plate above the box section did not change, only the t-track moved to the very edge – very close to the Y-axis gantry bearing. It’s a pretty significant loss on the last slat because after moving the t-track, the area just got larger!

@Chris

You’re going to need to get creative to get a full 4x4 space. (have you seen this post from MRD , slide in logic and I have those here Programming of ATC in Masso)

I hadn’t seen that video and enjoy the mechatronics. That’s something to start considering soon. I’d probably do something like an umbrella holder with chain of holders.

@Chris

Sometimes things just don’t work in our workflow as we’d expect them to.

Oh there’s definitely no complaints from here! Adversity is just opportunity in disguise. And if I’m going through it, so is someone else.

It’s been FAFO City getting to here and I finally made my first cut yesterday. This is after placing an order for the 1F at the end of last year. But because of so much COD (that’s OCD spelled as it should be… ), the cut came out almost perfectly (the tool motion inside a cavity needs more skill).

All in all, it led me to a pretty good static bit holder. I think I probably lose 2.5" in total but was so excited to cut that I forgot to measure. I’m probably giving up a frame around the edge of the wood is 2", so I can just secure the wood away from the bits an inch and be fine. I’ll get some pictures once I’ve got more cuts this weekend.

@Chris

What are you trying to do?
As far as I’m aware there is limited travel logic available, basically drop in and slide in with direct path rapid movements in-between.

The advantage of the fork logic is the X-Y seek is to a point outside the bits, then it finds the proper Z and enters the bit zone, grabs the bit, then perpendicularly leaves the zone before seeking the origin position. The Z height doesn’t matter if the spindle is moving outside the fork zone. On the other hand, the PnP logic picks up a bit, returns to Z-clearance and does a direct seek to the origin. If there are bits in the way of that seek, you get a crash.

Soft limits at the tool interface could help here. What would be ideal is if the tool changer algorithm optimized for the shortest path possible outside soft limits . Eg with my Y-axis rack, the shortest path is enabled by first moving to the tool to the Y location of the tool and the X soft limit, then making an X-only move at full Z height before lowering.

Taking the shortest path outside soft limits means soft limits can be used to allow overlapping Z heights in this manner. It also is a generic solution to least conflict outside soft limits, regardless of tool location.

[Chris]

@Briantopping

This is a pretty adequate shot of what’s going on with the outer rail:

Ok. The t-track rail moved closer to the Y rail and not closer to the inside the workplace.
I dont know if there’s anything we can do about that based on the travel clearance. If i remember correctly the qcw racks were already X=0.

. I dont think there’s any changes we can make with it to make it work as desired.

@Briantopping

The advantage of the fork logic is the X-Y seek is to a point outside the bits, then it finds the proper Z

That’s not a logic I’m aware of in masso.
The sliding option will go to the z drop off height, then slide in the distances/direction programmed, release and move up, direct route, down, grab then slide out.

You can put tool racks outside soft limits, but it can only be the right and/or the back. It’ll change tools in the no go envelope zone, but you can’t do anything else. I home to the right, so i could jog around there, but when i enter the workspace, i can’t go back outside it.
I experimented, and wrote about it somewhere.
But here’s what masso says on it

I wish there was a way to pick a rectangle of any size from the back right, but it’s for the whole axis length.

[Briantopping]

@Chris

You can put tool racks outside soft limits, but it can only be the right and/or the back. It’ll change tools in the no go envelope zone, but you can’t do anything else. I home to the right, so i could jog around there, but when i enter the workspace, i can’t go back outside it.
I experimented, and wrote about it somewhere.
But here’s what masso says on it

Ah… that’s very useful! I didn’t realize there was some logic about tool holders on the right. I also moved tool holders to the right, but didn’t try the soft limits again afterwards. That makes perfect sense now.

@Briantopping

The advantage of the fork logic is the X-Y seek is to a point outside the bits, then it finds the proper Z and enters the bit zone, grabs the bit, then perpendicularly leaves the zone before seeking the origin position. The Z height doesn’t matter if the spindle is moving outside the fork zone. On the other hand, the PnP logic picks up a bit, returns to Z-clearance and does a direct seek to the origin. If there are bits in the way of that seek, you get a crash.

After moving the tools to the right side, I realized the solution to the tool crash problem was to put the tool setter on the next rail in from the right side. In this manner, when the spindle seeks the tool setter with a dangling tool it will seek at a Just Deep Enough angle to miss the tool holders protruding from the adjacent spaces. I haven’t tested it yet with holders all the way into the back of the table, but any interference is easily solved by continuing to move the tool setter away from the racks. It’s more travel, but after watching F360 CAM “optimizations” drive the spindle all over the table, I’m less squicked about the travel.

[Chris]

@Briantopping

In this manner, when the spindle seeks the tool setter with a dangling tool it will seek at a Just Deep Enough angle to miss the tool holders protruding from the adjacent spaces

Sounds like playing with fire to me.

[tmuka]

I realize this is an old thread now. I swapped my original style x-50 Journeyman QCW end rails with the new style in case anyone is looking to buy the old ones from me for say $100+shipping.