I've got my BitSetter up and running

[NewToThis (Peter)]

…but I’m a bit confused about the ‘workflow’ of it.

Let me explain…

With it installed, tested and working properly, the router is moved to the ‘home’ position when initialised, then immediately moves to S, with a ‘Tool’ prompt which then moves it to the BitSetter, let’s it do it’s thing, then returns to S.

I then load a file, zero to the start point and then run the project, but it then goes through the same routine as before, with a tool prompt, a trip to the BitSetter, back to S to start the spindle, and then off it goes.

My question is this: I appreciate it probably needs to go ‘Home’ because that’s the machine’s zero, but why does it go through the tool stage twice from S?

Also, in my engineering days of several millennia ago, I was taught to always remove the tool from the machine at the end of the job. This is a little difficult with my Shapeoko because, when its finished the project, it disappears over the horizon at the back of the enclosure. Wouldn’t it be better to have it move to S at the end of the project, with a prompt to remove the tool (or not) before it goes to the back?

Maybe there is a reason for these each of these processes, and I’d be interested to know what they are, but it seems to be a bit inefficient?

Thank you

[CrookedWoodTex (Tex (Don't Mess With My Texas!))]

You have described the operation correctly. Two comments from me:

1. It’s natural to apply your expertise to the process. Forget that. It won’t change. Start cutting stuff.

2. Never, never, never change a tool without involving that bitsetter process. Did I say never? Yes, never.

Go ahead. Start cutting stuff.

[NewToThis (Peter)]

@CrookedWoodTex

You have described the operation correctly.

That’s good, then

@CrookedWoodTex

It’s natural to apply your expertise to the process. Forget that. It won’t change. Start cutting stuff.

Point taken

@CrookedWoodTex

Never, never, never change a tool without involving that bitsetter process. Did I say never? Yes, never.

I never, never, never, never, NEVER would ; I was just wondering (or maybe dangerously overthinking) about the the process running twice, is all.

@CrookedWoodTex

Go ahead. Start cutting stuff.

Yes Boss

[neilferreri (Neil Ferreri Ω)]

@NewToThis

Maybe there is a reason for these each of these processes, and I’d be interested to know what they are, but it seems to be a bit inefficient?

I think the main reasons are to hopefully reduce disasters caused by users. It is a BitInefficient.

[NewToThis (Peter)]

@neilferreri

BitInefficient

That made me laugh out loud!