[tmarks11]

Well the H1 is the height offset of the tool, which would be set with G43. It should be in the same line as a G43. But that is not the only issue...

It is really weird to set that offset in anything other than a tool change line (i.e. M06), as changing the offset generally only happens when the tool changes, and that line has the height set at 0.1", so it could be a disaster waiting to happen if you tried to fix it by simply putting a G43 in front of it.

Is there a tool change line (M06) in the line before it?

[C*H*U*D]

This is why I don't understand the Mach post processor not working...it's from the PP FAQ:

Will my CAM systems Mach3 postprocessor work with PathPilot?

Yes, it will. PathPilot and Mach3 share the same syntax, with the exception of subroutine programming.

Has this changed? Is there a new post?

[Philbobb]

This is why I don't understand the Mach post processor not working...it's from the PP FAQ:

Will my CAM systems Mach3 postprocessor work with PathPilot?

Yes, it will. PathPilot and Mach3 share the same syntax, with the exception of subroutine programming.

Has this changed? Is there a new post?

If it was legally formatted g-code coming out of the same post processor, it won't have a problem. Mach let you get away with some "illegal" formatting, PP won't. That's why you're having the issue.

[C*H*U*D]

If it was legally formatted g-code coming out of the same post processor, it won't have a problem. Mach let you get away with some "illegal" formatting, PP won't. That's why you're having the issue.

So then, what Tormach said in the FAQ is incorrect. PathPilot will not work with the Mach post processor for SprutCAM.

[Philbobb]

I would call Tormach to see if they have an updated post, or if they can tell you how to modify it.

[C*H*U*D]

I have contacted them...I'll reply here with what they say.