Re: Setx,y vs. G52


"Proctologically Violated©®" <physical@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CvmdnWNads8zG7LeRVn-ug@xxxxxxxxxx
> Awl--
>
> Recently I axed sumpn about Setx, and from what I can tell G52 is really a
> better way to go about this, much more convenient, of course edit-able,
etc.
> Appears to be quite helpful if yer running out of offsets in the offset
> table. In my case, it seems to be making my macros and left/right handed
> parts much more "doable", less confusing.
>
> A Q might be, then, why would one want to use Setx at all? Unless you
just
> working at the machine, in MDI, etc. (no program).
>

Suggest just use "E" instead...

--

SVL


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Setx,y vs. G52
    ... >> Recently I axed sumpn about Setx, and from what I can tell G52 is really ... >> Appears to be quite helpful if yer running out of offsets in the offset ... >> A Q might be, then, why would one want to use Setx at all? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Setx,y vs. G52
    ... Recently I axed sumpn about Setx, and from what I can tell G52 is really a ... Appears to be quite helpful if yer running out of offsets in the offset ... A Q might be, then, why would one want to use Setx at all? ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)