Opti Toolpaths not respecting the boundary

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I don't know if this has been discussed.

If it has, my apologies.

 

This past week I was working with a customer on some complex 5-axis work.

Mostly 3+2 work so we tried to take advantage of the Opti toolpaths.

 

<RANT ON>

 

Does anyone but me find it infuriating that Opti toolpaths refuse to respect the boundary?

If found Opti-Core to be downright infuriating in the results it produces when using a boundary.

 

What is the point of having a boundary if the toolpath exceeds it?

i don't want to hear about work-arounds.

I found those on my own.

 

IMHO, this is a colossal screw-up in functionality.

If you can't depend on a boundary to work correctly then the software is worthless.

 

<RANT OFF>

[jlw™]

I don't know if this has been discussed.

If it has, my apologies.

 

This past week I was working with a customer on some complex 5-axis work.

Mostly 3+2 work so we tried to take advantage of the Opti toolpaths.

 

<RANT ON>

 

Does anyone but me find it infuriating that Opti toolpaths refuse to respect the boundary?

If found Opti-Core to be downright infuriating in the results it produces when using a boundary.

 

What is the point of having a boundary if the toolpath exceeds it?

i don't want to hear about work-arounds.

I found those on my own.

 

IMHO, this is a colossal screw-up in functionality.

If you can't depend on a boundary to work correctly then the software is worthless.

 

<RANT OFF>

 

I started with X8 from esprit. I was used to a software adhering to my boundaries.

 

I have been fighting this since day one with mcam. It's down right frustrating. I use these paths FREQUENTLY but what's aggrivating me now is all of the sudden when I copy and paste it loses all of my settings. This is a new development.

 

I've got to where when I draw a boundary I extrude surfaces and make them check so it will stay in.

[gcode]

Were you X9?

 

They've chnage it up some in X9

There's Dynamic Optirough

It has a radio buttoms on the Toolpath Type page

"Stay inside" or "from the outside"

I've found the software does a good job of respecting those options

The other toolpath ir Area Roughing, which could be considered

dynamic pocketing.

The few times I've used it, it's respect of the containment boundries was rock solid

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I started with X8 from esprit. I was used to a software adhering to my boundaries.

 

I have been fighting this since day one with mcam. It's down right frustrating. I use these paths FREQUENTLY but what's aggrivating me now is all of the sudden when I copy and paste it loses all of my settings. This is a new development.

 

I've got to where when I draw a boundary I extrude surfaces and make them check so it will stay in.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

 

I started with X8 from esprit. I was used to a software adhering to my boundaries.

 

I have been fighting this since day one with mcam. It's down right frustrating. I use these paths FREQUENTLY but what's aggrivating me now is all of the sudden when I copy and paste it loses all of my settings. This is a new development.

 

I've got to where when I draw a boundary I extrude surfaces and make them check so it will stay in.

This brings up another issue.

In X8 Opti paths, check surfaces are worthless.

You continually get a message that that check surfaces will be treated as drive surfaces.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

Were you X9?

 

They've chnage it up some in X9

There's Dynamic Optirough

It has a radio buttoms on the Toolpath Type page

"Stay inside" or "from the outside"

I've found the software does a good job of respecting those options

The other toolpath ir Area Roughing, which could be considered

dynamic pocketing.

The few times I've used it, it's respect of the containment boundries was rock solid

This was with X8.

 

When you add the fact that check surfaces get treated as drive surfaces, I am not at all impressed with the quality of the Opt paths.

Many times they are terribly inefficient

 

The fact that boundaries aren't addressed until X9 seems to be par for the course.

 

While 3d paths have gotten better, I expected more in X8.

 

How does a CAM software company in today's market, release software that doesn't respect path boundaries and check surfaces?

[Müřlıń®]

I found that when I left stock, opti would violate boundaries. So I started

Using the offset feature to force it to respect...

 

If I left .03 stock I would use a .03 or .04 offset.

 

Seems like it didn't like trying to figure boundary if it was exactly like the edge of the model.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I found that when I left stock, opti would violate boundaries. So I started

Using the offset feature to force it to respect...

 

If I left .03 stock I would use a .03 or .04 offset.

 

Seems like it didn't like trying to figure boundary if it was exactly like the edge of the model.

 

I haven't tried that one specifically.

I'll have to give it a shot.

 

Many Thanks!

[Müřlıń®]

I haven't tried that one specifically.

I'll have to give it a shot.

 

Many Thanks!

Draw your boundary bigger and shrink it back down with your offset distance..

[Mick]

How does a CAM software company in today's market, release software that doesn't respect path boundaries and check surfaces?

 

Ooh, Ooh, Can I answer that? Please? Please?

 

Heh...yeah, I know... Troublemaker!

[civiceg]

Violating step over in order to maintain engagement is a bigger issue for me.

[Newbeeee™]

Violating step over in order to maintain engagement is a bigger issue for me.

I had one (x9) where it chomped through the part with a big cut over engaging.

At the feed the machines can run at, I feel it imperative to slowly verify looking at what it's actually doing.

[civiceg]

 

I had one (x9) where it chomped through the part with a big cut over engaging.

At the feed the machines can run at, I feel it imperative to slowly verify looking at what it's actually doing.

 

Agreed, it bit my coworker on a large chassis. Luckily it only broke the endmill. Even after I verify closely I will look at the backplot c/l to see any large "jump". Large rounded corners when making the part out of rectangular stock is where I see it the most. Which is why I have switched to 2d high-speed for that scenario. I extend the cut as well as slowed the feed on the first pass.

[Müřlıń®]

I had one (x9) where it chomped through the part with a big cut over engaging.

At the feed the machines can run at, I feel it imperative to slowly verify looking at what it's actually doing.

X8 does the same thing....usually it is an incorrect boundary.

But how do you know what the difference between a correct boundary and an incorrect one is?

 

Search me...sstill trying to figure that one out...

.

Yes SLOW verify paying attention is the key to finding it.

[Thee Rickster ™]

Violating step over in order to maintain engagement is a bigger issue for me.

I f you can submit a file to [email protected] it would be greatly appreciated.

 

just in case this slipped through the first maintenance update

[civiceg]

 

I f you can submit a file to [email protected] it would be greatly appreciated.

 

just in case this slipped through the first maintenance update

 

There was a thread about it on here. I have not tried X9 yet, but this was in X6 and X8.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

X8 does the same thing....usually it is an incorrect boundary.

But how do you know what the difference between a correct boundary and an incorrect one is?

 

Search me...sstill trying to figure that one out...

.

Yes SLOW verify paying attention is the key to finding it.

 

 

I have recreated boundaries, removed splines from them, removed corners altogether.

i've even created a basic rectangle with fillets as a boundary.

All of this to no avail.

I would love to know what constitutes a 'correct' boundary since this problem doesn't exist

with the other non-opti toolpaths.

 

Making the boundary slightly larger and then using the offset is something I haven't tried.

 

The fact that X9 has an option button to tell the path to "Stay inside" or "from the outside" has me just shaking my head.

 

Why on earth do you need to tell the system to respect the boundary?

That's the whole purpose of a boundary in the first place.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I often fall back to the "classic" surface finish paths for these reasons.  I'm still using surface finish contour and flowline regularly.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I f you can submit a file to [email protected] it would be greatly appreciated.

 

just in case this slipped through the first maintenance update

 

You're joking, right?

 

I have never once even received a reply from anything sent to QC.

 

It is my experience that QC is a giant black hole where bug reports go to die.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

 

You're joking, right?

 

I have never once even received a reply from anything sent to QC.

 

It is my experience that QC is a giant black hole where bug reports go to die.

 

Wow.  I get responses all the time.  Usually prompt and informative too, and if the first-line guy gets stumped he'll often bump it to the product manager for the function(s) involved.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I often fall back to the "classic" surface finish paths for these reasons.  I'm still using surface finish contour and flowline regularly.

 

I do the same.

 

 

In this case, I created a copy of the finished part model on another level.

I then used the new solid tools to move some of the faces.

I do this a lot now to extend the flowline paths.

 

The nature of the geometry only allowed me to use the Opti-Core in one area.

Because the stock was irregular, I ended up using the Waterline toolpath as a roughing path.

It was actually the most efficient for what I needed.

 

Opti paths would be great if they respected the boundary and check surfaces.

The check surface issue is one I can't understand at all.

There is no point to having a check surface if the software treats it as a drive surface.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

Wow.  I get responses all the time.  Usually prompt and informative too, and if the first-line guy gets stumped he'll often bump it to the product manager for the function(s) involved.

 

When I was working on the Mill/Turn product as a contractor, I must have submitted over 100 issues.

Not a single response to any of them.

 

I don't bother anymore.

[civiceg]

 

The fact that X9 has an option button to tell the path to "Stay inside" or "from the outside" has me just shaking my head.

 

Its because they got rid of the core/area nomenclature. How effective is it? I have not played with it enough.

[Thee Rickster ™]

You're joking, right?

 

I have never once even received a reply from anything sent to QC.

 

It is my experience that QC is a giant black hole where bug reports go to die.

i feel the same way but, there is no other avenue to fix anything, in a timely manner.(or sometimes at all)

 

one bug with opticore i sent in for X7 mu1(i think), was parameters/transitions/helix radius would gouge

every time i left the default 0.0625" in the box, i was told to try changing it to .06" and that fixed it every time

 

i dont know if the bug got fixed because i lock .06" in my control def.....

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

i feel the same way but, there is no other avenue to fix anything, in a timely manner.(or sometimes at all)

 

one bug with opticore i sent in for X7 mu1(i think), was parameters/transitions/helix radius would gouge

every time i left the default 0.0625" in the box, i was told to try changing it to .06" and that fixed it every time

 

i dont know if the bug got fixed because i lock .06" in my control def.....

 

 

I'll give that a shot as well.

Can't hurt.

 

Thanks.