Handling Tombstone programming

[Guest]

I would like to see how others are handling this....

 

Please do not go off on "Product Y" don't use product Y and won't be using Product Y, so let's keep this to Mastercam

 

So I am wondering what level of detail gets put in on the programming side?

 

I like to have the tombstone, fixtures and parts all laid out where there will be in the machine.......

 

Programming is the big question and how you do it.....

 

I typically like to program the part at B0 and transform and sub-program out. One of the short comings I have seen is working positions.

 

When using transform, if I end at B270, I want to pick up at B270 and work backwards, however, programming in 1 location, that is not easily done without a fair bit of hand editing.

 

As a rule I loathe hand editing and feel in almost all cases it's a matter of someone's preference, not a real need

 

So I am curious how you all do it?

 

Please remain OT and in Mastercam

 

 

edit: and yes, I am currently working up a Post for a Mori NH4000. That's what raised the question for me

[FROZEN]

When you transform, create new toolpaths and geo. That seem to work the best.

[Guest]

I start at B0 and work my way around as well. I don't work backwards, preferring instead to continue the same CW/CCW motion on the rotary. On the post side, I typically use subs and everything after the G43 but before the full Z retract is in the sub. No work offset calls are in the sub. Just motion to keep it as flexible as possible so I can restart if need be more or less where I want.

 

I do Model everything up and use CL Rotation for my work offset position.

 

JM2CFWIW

 

YMMV

[specv]

For me the work offset is almost always the part zero, I have used transform in the past, but create new toolpath and geo like frozen said. I modfied my post to use 1 sub program and use macro #s to goto the portion of code i need for each tool in the part program. That way i don't have a separate sub for each tool.

[Sticky]

Likewise I have all my tombstones and parts modeled and located as they are in the machine. My post has my COR and top of pallet machine coordinates plugged in it, and my models are appropriately positioned in MC so that when I post the wcs' I set all over the tombstone/parts will output the correct values with G10 for my work offsets in the header of the program.

 

As you mentioned, rotating counterclockwise is an issue. IMO the larger issue is when you want to do things like have T1 do all the work on B0, but you would also like to hit the side features of the parts on B90 and B270 while you are there, but those features have different wcs' than the B0 features. When doing that with Subs you have to do a lot of monkey work.

 

You didn't really mention what kind of tombstone work you are doing. If you are just doing one part/pallet, or one part per side. It's really not too bad. When you are doing 4+ part per side of a tombstone or more it becomes a much larger headache.

 

I have my post modified to allow me to at least hack my way through that situation though. I start by completely programming the at the lowest location on B0 in it's own tool group. When that is done I create a new tool group called "translate". This allows me to create an X&Y grid of the amount of parts I need to machine for that face. In this tool group I go through consolidate my tools into their own translates so that 1 tool will do all the work on one face, and if the code is large then I group it all into a sub program as well. So if T1 was originally programmed to do 10 different operations as the first tool of the program, I would group all ten of these into one translate, and then move to the next tool and create a translate for it etc

 

After all my translates are organized, I then create a "transform rotate"  group. In this group I simply create a transform rotate of the translate groups to make it go around the tombstone.

 

I use subs all the time because I run so many parts and the files get really big really fast. So I had my post modified so that I can set some custom parameters in the transform wizard that allow me to use the same sub programs created in my translate, for my transform.

 

ie if I have a sub program for T1 to work all over B0, when I rotate that to B90, I am still using the same sub number.

[Zoober]

Because we have a policy of zero hand edits, we rarely transform. We have dedicated unlock locations on our tombstones, that all offsets come from. If I need to fudge one part, I do it, without affecting any other parts that would be included in a transform. A little more up front, but we don't need genius setup guys at each machine this way. Everything is controlled in programming, not at the machine.

[Guest]

Because we have a policy of zero hand edits, we rarely transform. 

In an ideal world I would LOVE to get there, I know you can.....but, I am not in the position to make that call.

[Eric@HorsepowerInc.]

I would like to see how others are handling this....

 

Please do not go off on "Product Y" don't use product Y and won't be using Product Y, so let's keep this to Mastercam

 

So I am wondering what level of detail gets put in on the programming side?

 

I like to have the tombstone, fixtures and parts all laid out where there will be in the machine.......

 

Programming is the big question and how you do it.....

 

I typically like to program the part at B0 and transform and sub-program out. One of the short comings I have seen is working positions.

 

When using transform, if I end at B270, I want to pick up at B270 and work backwards, however, programming in 1 location, that is not easily done without a fair bit of hand editing.

 

As a rule I loathe hand editing and feel in almost all cases it's a matter of someone's preference, not a real need

 

So I am curious how you all do it?

 

Please remain OT and in Mastercam

 

 

edit: and yes, I am currently working up a Post for a Mori NH4000. That's what raised the question for me

 

Like FOGHORN stated, start at one location and work your way around. I use transform all the time, but NOT ever sub programs from them.  IMO, MC could use some help regarding area's such as this. Wait until you program a 8 station fixture on a dual platter trunnion 5ax.  Loads of fun, working on our 3rd multi part fixture for a dual 5ax now, almost impossible to not hand edit some. What kills me is winding up the B axis, then the wasted time unwinding. Arrgh!

[Sticky]

Because we have a policy of zero hand edits, we rarely transform. We have dedicated unlock locations on our tombstones, that all offsets come from. If I need to fudge one part, I do it, without affecting any other parts that would be included in a transform. A little more up front, but we don't need genius setup guys at each machine this way. Everything is controlled in programming, not at the machine.

 

 

I'm guessing you have part location variances or something? Otherwise I don't understand. We transform everything and don't hand edit...

[Zoober]

I'm guessing you have part location variances or something? Otherwise I don't understand. We transform everything and don't hand edit...

Yes. A lot of our parts are laser blanks that are form fixtured. Due to inconsistencies in fixtures and or blanks, we have to have ultimate flexibility. Transforms can work sometimes, but I've been bit too many times to rely on a set number.

John, I understand... I was giving our perspective. Not saying it's right or wrong for any given situation.

[civiceg]

We do a lot of weldments that take up the whole work envelope. Those are usually programmed in top view with manual entry rotary calls between operations. Parts that sit on c/l are programed in front view and associated angled views. Not a whole lot of production, so jobs constantly switch between verticals and horizontals. There are a lot of three op vertical jobs programmed in top view and go to the hmc's. Those also get a manual entry for side operation rotations. 

[Sticky]

Yes. A lot of our parts are laser blanks that are form fixtured. Due to inconsistencies in fixtures and or blanks, we have to have ultimate flexibility. Transforms can work sometimes, but I've been bit too many times to rely on a set number.

John, I understand... I was giving our perspective. Not saying it's right or wrong for any given situation.

 

So your operators are manually finding the work offsets?

[Eric@HorsepowerInc.]

In the past with some castings we probed the part to establish 0, or any given location. Do you have these capabilities, works very very well, even in 5ax situations.

[Sticky]

In the past with some castings we probed the part to establish 0, or any given location. Do you have these capabilities, works very very well, even in 5ax situations.

 

Exactly. We do lots of weldments, castings etc that aren't in exactly the same size everytime. However out workholding IS. So I can use transforms and G10's reliably, because if it needs to be adjusted we bring in the probe at the start to write overtop of the program's offsets to reflect the current status of the parts.

 

I am curious to hear more about Zoober's situation though because I actually used an old thread of his to get my G10's working.

[Bob W.]

Here is what I do, though I'm no expert.  The first operation in my program is a manual entry.  This has the part offset location and sets the machine's offsets via G10 commands.  If I need better accuracy I will follow that up with probing cycles that reset those offsets based on the probed values.  I then program one face of the tombstone to completion and post is out as a stand alone program.  I control the transformes at the machine via M198 master programs that have this format:

 

G90 G10 L2 P1 B0.0  (sets B value only)

M198 P100

/2 M0

 

 

G90 G10 L2 P1 B90.0

M198 P100

/2 M0

 

etc...

 

This is inefficient due to extra indexes and tool changes, etc... but I have parts moving through the machine.  I will then set up another operation group that consists only of rotated transforms that all reference the original program.  I will strategically transform based on index position, tool, etc... to hit all four sides of the tombstone with minimum tool changes and indexing.  The original program stays 100% intact so I can always post the stand alone program if I need to run on one side only.  The transform operation group might consist of 4-8 transform operations and these post with zero hand edits.  Once the transformed program is ready to go I modify the M198 master and insert it into the queue on B0.0 only.

[Sticky]

Hey Bob, fwiw, with the method I am using you can still post one part, one side, or all rotary sides with out having to change or modify anything. Also I'd recommend setting up your post to automatically calculating your offsets for you, saves a bunch of time

[Zoober]

So your operators are manually finding the work offsets?

No. That is the last thing we want. Operators don't set offsets, they don't edit programs. They load, unload, and check parts. The machine tells them when to change a tool if it is dull. We still have work to do, but that is our goal shop wide.

[Sticky]

No. That is the last thing we want. Operators don't set offsets, they don't edit programs. They load, unload, and check parts. The machine tells them when to change a tool if it is dull. We still have work to do, but that is our goal shop wide.

 

I do the same for the same reasons. Which is why I can't understand why you don't use transforms. If you are setting the workoffsets automatically with G10, how is transforms screwing anything up for you?

 

Aside from transform bugs, that is another story.

[Zoober]

Our parts do not generally meet the normal job shop operating parameters. We do short run, high variety frequently repeating parts as we need to Kanban them. We can go from running a thousand piece run to a one off, then back (or to a different part run) with no intervention other than loading a program and tombstones. We kit dozens of parts per machine that we can select from on the fly.

When we make parts, we don't just get a FA and run. We are in the medical world. EVERY part we make goes thru capability studies and run validations. We MUST have fully capable processes running to cpk 1.0 or better.

So we tend to front load in programming for the process, not the programmer time.

Transforms are ultimately not accurate or flexible enough

[Sticky]

Our parts do not generally meet the normal job shop operating parameters. We do short run, high variety frequently repeating parts as we need to Kanban them. We can go from running a thousand piece run to a one off, then back (or to a different part run) with no intervention other than loading a program and tombstones. We kit dozens of parts per machine that we can select from on the fly.

When we make parts, we don't just get a FA and run. We are in the medical world. EVERY part we make goes thru capability studies and run validations. We MUST have fully capable processes running to cpk 1.0 or better.

So we tend to front load in programming for the process, not the programmer time.

Transforms are ultimately not accurate or flexible enough

 

None of that explains why transforms won't work. I do the same type of work, some days high volume, some high mix, both at the same time. Operators don't find offsets, dial stuff in etc.

 

I agree transform aren't very flexible. But you aren't really answering my question. If you are using G10's to post your workoffsets, and your fixtures are repeatable WHY are transforms not accurate enough?

[Zoober]

None of that explains why transforms won't work. I do the same type of work, some days high volume, some high mix, both at the same time. Operators don't find offsets, dial stuff in etc.

 

I agree transform aren't very flexible. But you aren't really answering my question. If you are using G10's to post your workoffsets, and your fixtures are repeatable WHY are transforms not accurate enough?

I never said transforms don't work. I said they don't work for us.

I'm not quite sure what your question is, other than why i don't use transforms. My answer is the same as why I don't use certain softwares... They don't fit the way we do things.

I like to have control of each and every station, on each and every fixture, on each and every pallet individually. I don't think I have that control using transforms. It really is that simple.

[Sticky]

I never said transforms don't work. It really is that simple.

 

I never said or suggested you said that transforms don't work.

 

You said:

 

Transforms are ultimately not accurate or flexible enough

 

 

I asked:

 

WHY are transforms not accurate enough?

 

It really is that simple...

[Zoober]

Ok... Let me put this to bed for you.

I have a fixture. Said fixture is locating 26 pcs. This particular fixture is located on a unilock. The centerline of the unilock and face of the unilock is my sole offset for said fixture containing 26 different pieces. Now, this fixture goes through a checking station. Four random locations do not fit the original grid by .0003 or so...

Now, my entire rectangular transformations are off for these positions. Can I break into the transformation and relocate those four without creating separate transformations breaking my grid of 26 pieces into smaller, more localized transforms?

Now, because we do families, planning asks "can you put a pivot pin in 9 pieces for a shortage we have on the 128-169-4-3a parts?"

I can continue, but why?

[Sticky]

There are a few ways you can fix that, all of which you could use transforms for. Probe, G68 etc.

 

No reason for transforms to prevent you from 9 pcs, or modifying 9 pcs.

 

You can continue, but it would be nice if you would just answer the question instead of dodging it Micro style

[Zoober]

I'm done hijacking JP's thread. Sorry John.