Peel Mill X7 vs. X6 or X5 .. what gives..?

[djstedman]

Ok .. so I was wondering if anyone else has noticed the difference in peel mill in X7 vs. X6 or X5..

 

The following applies to a simple slot.. take two parallel lines and use them as your geometry to drive peel mill..

 

In X5 or X6 I would make a stepover... for the sake of example say 10 percent on a .375 tool and I would get a stepover of .0375 which I could verify if I did an analyze points on the toolpath when its displayed..

 

In X7 with the exact same geometry and settings .. instead of getting a .0375 stepover .. which is what it clearly says in the settings under stepover.. I get a .014 stepover.. which is well under 50% of the stepover I put in..

 

I have found several files now that in x5 and x6 produced cycle times of 15 to 20 minutes and in x7 its more like 45 minutes for the same feature.. I have traced it back to this.. im wondering if anyone else has noticed this.. and if so if anyone has any explanation for why.

 

My only guess at this point is they are using an algorithm that attempts to determine engagement of the tool and alters stepover to match..

 

Anyhow.. sorry for the rant.. but I had to ask if anyone noticed this and if anyone knows if it was intentional and if so what the reasoning was..

[neurosis]

Yes, I have noticed it. I dont really care for it very much. Actually, I should put it this way. I really like it for some things but not for others. It would be nice if there was an option to revert back to the old way. If I wanted to use a dynamic type motion I would just use dynamic tool paths.

 

The programs are much larger and take much longer to run depending on the size of the slot and the tool you are using.

[djstedman]

Well I have found if you lie to it.. you can re-produce what you got in X6 rather closely.. for instance in the example above I was looking for 10 percent of the cutter.. when I told it I wanted 25 percent of the cutter for a stepover .. I actually got the 10 percent I was after to begin with. Once you do that .. you get a pretty close cycle time to what it was in X6.. the thing I cant stand about it is I have a ton of programs that use peel mill in X5 and or X6 that if I post them out now.. take twice as long and I am stuck going back to re-invent the wheel on stuff that was dialed in to begin with if I ever have to rework a feature and re-post.

 

I like to save my MCX files and would like to believe that features I make now.. should behave the same in future versions so I don't end up with stuff that's proven to work.. behaving different when we upgrade and thus changing the process in an 'invisible' manner.

[BenK]

I just tried it and it works correctly here. Could you share more information or a file?

[Mic]

Simple explanation.

 

In X6 and older, peel mill was simple trochoidal motion whereas X7 has adapted the dynamic mill style for peel mill.

 

So a 10% stepover will give you a 36.9° engagement angle and depending on how narrow your groove is this will affect the actual stepover.

 

[djstedman]

Wish I could watch the youtube video.. its blocked at work.. anyhow I guess that explains it.. personally I would prefer the 'simple trichoidal motion' over the much slower cycle time of dynamic motion for peel mil, I can understand where dynamic motion is better in complex pockets by reducing load on cutters etc.. but there are places where straight trichoidal motion far exceeds it .. especially when slotting.

 

Guess I will just have to learn to use what's there now.. sad to see a strategy that was able to save tons of cycle time disappear though..

[Henk]

I appreciate the X6-style Peel Mill for tighter slots.

IT comes back

 

http://forum.mastercam.com/Topic3696.aspx