Hurco Turning centers-Who's got them?

proturn said:

I did look at the genoa line a few months ago but after owning Hurco's and and a Mazak, the Okuma conversational didn't sell me. I don't dought that they are nice machines. The Hurco just felt right to me and I really like the fact it has the same control as the mills. Going forward with my business it just makes sense to standardize the controls.

Click to expand...

I think there is A LOT to be said for standardizing, so if you're happy with your controls, I think your making a wise decision. Please don't take this next part as me picking on you, this is more for others reading...

I'm still kind of curious if people really use conversational programming for turning centers. I know Mazatrol is popular, but I don't hear much about other conversational controls for lathes.

When deing with 2-axis lathes especially, I fail to see the use for conversational programming. Once you know the format of your g-code program, you can use canned cycles for 99% of all your functions, and you simply "fill in the blanks" to define your tool path, much the same as you would on a conversational control. The benefit is that once you gain even a basic level of understanding, you have total control over the machine. When you add in the possibilities of variables, even for very simple uses, it makes it even easier to program.

And I will brag on Okuma for a bit as well. Not only do they make a great machine, but their control becomes so intuitive after just a few days of use. Things like pictorial work offset screens, a text-based editor that is much better than any "background edit" I've ever seen, and an incredibly useful on-machine alarm manual that is only a button away, helps track down and solve program errors easily. You can see where the control stopped in the program, press a button to read the alarm description and suggested fixes , then quick-edit the program in a window that opens to the same spot where the control stopped, so that you can quickly resolve the issue and get back to running.

There's plenty more I could get into as well. My point though, for anyone else looking, is that putting that control onto a box-way machine, with absolute encoders, live tools, hand-scraped headstock, servo-driven turret, and powerful spindle motor, for $100k... - like someone else said above, does anyone offer a similar machine for anywhere close in price?

proturn said:

Going forward with my business it just makes sense to standardize the controls.

Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said for that. When I had four controls in the shop I felt kinda like the saying "jack of all trades master of none." It's easy enough to do the basic stuff with different controls but real hard to master all the intricacies.

We use the control to program everything we do, and we even do some sucky 4-axis mill parts on our lathe... It may not be a $350K Mazak Hyperquadrex, but it sure makes the payments. Proturn, did you say you got a 3-axis machine? If so, you will be blown away how easy that machine is to program. The only thing still lacking on that software is programming live tool toolpaths with the Y, and that's not even really bad if you know how to lie to it.

As hard as it is, some people should wait to decide that the TMX line is similar to a hASS toolroom lathe until they see one in action. These are big dumb heavy lathes. You'll be happy with your decision, Proturn. Excited to see some videos!

-Parker

OOOOHHHH!!!!!!! If you can back out of the power chuck though, don't buy it from Hurco... USShopTools has the same Strong power chuck (which is a pretty deece chuck) for like $2-3K less.

Wish I woulda knew that.... we have a 8" annnd a 6" on our machine... coulda bought a lot of tooling for that...

Jashley73 said:

I'm still kind of curious if people really use conversational programming for turning centers. I know Mazatrol is popular, but I don't hear much about other conversational controls for lathes.

When deing with 2-axis lathes especially, I fail to see the use for conversational programming. Once you know the format of your g-code program, you can use canned cycles for 99% of all your functions, and you simply "fill in the blanks" to define your tool path, much the same as you would on a conversational control.

Click to expand...

How much time have you actually spent making parts using a conversational control?

Philabuster said:

How much time have you actually spent making parts using a conversational control?

Click to expand...

Not too much. I've used the Haas lathe conversational, and Hurco mill conversational in the past. I've tinkered with Fanuc's Manual Guide i also. I know that they don't represent the entire industry, but neither did anything for me. In fact, I felt limited once I wanted to do anything beyond basic.

You pointed out in my post above about 2-axis lathes particularly. I personally don't believe that 2-axis lathes are difficult to program using g-codes. The key is using canned cycles, and copy/pasting from a "master" program template.

The program header, safety lines, tool change positions, canned cycles and ending can always be the same. All that's left is to fill in a couple values for your canned cycles, and define your tool paths --- which has to be done in a conversational control just the same.

The benefit, is that the operator becomes familiar with the native G-code, and begins to become detail-oriented in their thinking. Troubleshooting becomes easier because they begin to understand it, and if/when they ever use a CAM system, troubleshooting those programs becomes possible as well.

proturn said:

I'm looking for feedback on Hurco turning centers. How many of you have them and how ridgid is the tm10 or Tm8? I really like my Hurco VMC's and I think having a conversational control for my short run jobs would be the way to go. What do you like/Hate about them? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

One thing I noticed, and I kinda was wondering, what others impressions are ? When I go to an auction that has Machines say, ten plus or even five years plus, some look really beat and some look stout. I understand its a matter of care and use, but I was wondering if its just me, with my own mind set. But... here goes: I have seen some Hurcos that after a few years look beat, even the beloved Mori's look down the road, but... some of the Hass's look nice.
If I am going to keep a machine for years, I want the machine, to look and operate nicely, obviously with moderate use, and scheduled maintenance. What have others noticed ?

Hi Steve's Hobby:
As I'm sure you can appreciate, the look of any given used machine says almost nothing about the quality of the guts, nor their condition.
Pristine paint and shiny sheet metal may be a sign the machine never ran right, or was unpopular, or needed lots of fixing.
Also, low end machines like Haas are often bought by one man shops, and hobby guys, so they get babied by their owners in a way that multi user production machines never do.

Of course, some machines get abused by rough bastards and brainless hackers, but the evidence of that is usually pretty obvious; the sheet metal has dents where stuff escaped and whanged it, there are pieces missing where stuff got ripped off the machine by a crash, it sounds like a bag of rocks when you turn it on; you get the picture.
A Haas that looks nice might well be a perfectly good machine, but it will never compete with a Mori that's dirty and missing paint but is mechanically sound.
It's awfully tempting though, to look more favourably on the clean machine; used machinery dealers know this, and that's why Porch Paint Rebuilds are so popular on places like EBay.
Cheers

Marcus
Implant Mechanix – Design & Innovation - home
Vancouver Wire EDM -- Wire EDM Machining

Not too much. I've used the Haas lathe conversational, and Hurco mill conversational in the past. I've tinkered with Fanuc's Manual Guide i also. I know that they don't represent the entire industry, but neither did anything for me. In fact, I felt limited once I wanted to do anything beyond basic.

You pointed out in my post above about 2-axis lathes particularly. I personally don't believe that 2-axis lathes are difficult to program using g-codes. The key is using canned cycles, and copy/pasting from a "master" program template.

Click to expand...

I don't want to steal the thread topic, but this just doesn't make much sense to me. If conversational has any limitations, they're no greater than the limitations of a canned cycle. Canned cycles cover you through basics, but not much else, just like your claim of coversational.

Second, I agree 2 axis lathes aren't difficult at all to program. You say the key is to copy and paste from a master program template. The irony here, is that's exactly what a conversational program is doing. It's basically a master template, where you fill in the blanks. Sounds just like a canned cycle, wouldn't you say?

The thing that makes conversational rise above is that there is actually more flexibility than that of a canned cycle. Don't count Haas, I call that "semi-conversational". It's doing nothing but building your G code program.

Hey gang, I was just surfing a "lil" bit and found these videos. It might help some of you visualize what its like to program "conversationally" on the Hurco WinMax control. Most of them are short and sweet. Take a look and report back to the class

Video Courses

At first I thought it was cool the way it showed you the graphic on the left and the inputs on the right. Then I realized that the screen on the left is not part of the control.

Maybe I'm jaded by years and years of programming lathes with nothing but a keyboard, but I don't think there is anything in those videos for me. Is it geared toward a guy who has never used CNC before? Surely that kind of rookie should not be on a 3 or 4 axis lathe with live tools.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Dave K. You make some valid points . This may be a case of Tomato - Tomotto...

The difference from my perspective though, is that by doing it the G-code way, one builds a foundational knowledge that transfers across different machines, regardless of make or type. Once that foundational knowledge is there, it makes it easier to get into more advanced programming. What if you have to cut a feature that conversational or canned cycles won't really do? Like some weird tapered-groove on an O.D for example? Having even a novice-level understanding of G-code will help with something like that.

The other problem with conversational, is of course that it doesn't always translate across controls. Lots of people like Mazatrol, and for some, it's all they know. Now, Mazatrol might be the bees knees, but what happens when that shop closes, or sells the machine, and they have to move to another? Or what if they have to run the same job on "the old machine" that doesn't have a conversational control? Learning another conversational control isn't nearly as easy as just writing out similar G-code, which in most cases is fairly universal.

Maybe my harping on isn't being very helpful - sorry if not. Proturn, I hope the new turning center works out well for you.

Jashley,
You also have some valid points. Conversational almost never translates from one control to the next, and gives no foundation for G code programming. But, my comments were based on what you said earlier, which was not the same as the concerns you are stating now. Your basic comparison was between conversational, vs, canned cycles with g-code, and ease of making a program using them.

Anyway, I'm starting to sound argumentative, and don't mean to be. Good conversation, I'd say. (pun intended).

I don't mind a conversational control if it can also take G Code. I would never want something like a Mazatrol, Prototrak, or older Brother with conversational only. I recently ran into a custom threading cycle that could not be done in Mazatrol no matter how much you lied to it. Yet a simple G32 on Fanuc makes it look easy.

One thing nice about my Siemans, you can run g-code, but you can also run conversational, and slip in a G or M code right in the middle of the conversational program, and it still executes it.

Dave K said:

One thing nice about my Siemans, you can run g-code, but you can also run conversational, and slip in a G or M code right in the middle of the conversational program, and it still executes it.

Click to expand...

Have you been able to slip anything other than a G0 or G1 in there?



----------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Ox said:

Have you been able to slip anything other than a G0 or G1 in there?



----------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Click to expand...

M codes, but other than that, haven't actually tried anything else. Really haven't had a reason to. Have you tried it and had problems?

I too have a g code background. After using the conversational functions on the Hurco mill and then the Mazak lathe, I have found value with it. I find value in it it because the majority of our work is very low volume. With g code I find we were constantly back and forth between the PC and the control. Editing a program by hand in the control is cumbersome with g code machines because you have to usually change many lines of code or several numbers to get the desired result. After doing all the edits you have to white knuckle your override switches in case you fat fingered something while editing. With low volumes of parts it's cost prohibitive.
With Conversational when you need to edit something usually you need only change one value and render (draw) your part to verify your change. If you like what you see you just run the program. More often than not, your first part is a good part. It's the fastest way I've ever been able to make one or two part orders bar none. I swear by conversational for low volume work.

proturn said:

I too have a g code background. After using the conversational functions on the Hurco mill and then the Mazak lathe, I have found value with it. I find value in it it because the majority of our work is very low volume. With g code I find we were constantly back and forth between the PC and the control. Editing a program by hand in the control is cumbersome with g code machines because you have to usually change many lines of code or several numbers to get the desired result. After doing all the edits you have to white knuckle your override switches in case you fat fingered something while editing. With low volumes of parts it's cost prohibitive.
With Conversational when you need to edit something usually you need only change one value and render (draw) your part to verify your change. If you like what you see you just run the program. More often than not, your first part is a good part. It's the fastest way I've ever been able to make one or two part orders bar none. I swear by conversational for low volume work.

Click to expand...

Yes, embrace technology....
Like a manual machinist saying cnc are worthless.

ewlsey said:

I don't mind a conversational control if it can also take G Code. I would never want something like a Mazatrol, Prototrak, or older Brother with conversational only. I recently ran into a custom threading cycle that could not be done in Mazatrol no matter how much you lied to it. Yet a simple G32 on Fanuc makes it look easy.

Click to expand...

Hurco nailed this! I can take literally any g code post from Fanuc or haas and drop the code into the machine and be off to the races! You can even verify the g code program in the graphics page! When the machine renders the code it gives you really nice graphic image of your part. It's pretty slick