Jump to content

Welcome to eMastercam

Register now to participate in the forums, access the download area, buy Mastercam training materials, post processors and more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Use your display name or email address to sign in:

Horizontal Programming for tombstone "best practices"


Jkermit83
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the “best practice” to structure the groups and transforms/rotations in order to be able to post out 8 different programs from the list below?  I’m looking for the cleanest way to accomplish this. 

 

It seems that being able to post out “shared tools” between operations and individual operations (using transforms) by themselves are in opposition as far as group structure.  Is it possible to do both cleanly?

It also seems that toggling the ghost on and off may be one possible solution to accomplish without using redundant toolpaths.  A Zero transform pointing to seed operations may also work.

 

Here are the programs I’m looking to generate from this file:

 

1.    Only one part instance for op1 top (to confirm setup / offsets are correct)

2.    Only one part instance for op1 bottom (to confirm setup / offsets are correct)

3.    Only one part instance for op2 (to confirm setup / offsets are correct)

4.    One entire pallet of op1’s top

5.    One entire pallet of op1’s bottom

6.    One entire pallet of op1’s top and bottom sharing tools

7.    One entire pallet of op2’s

8.    One entire pallet all operations that shares tools for best possible cycle time

 

I am interested in learning more about the Tombstone wizard C hook, and possibly a custom post if needed.  However file size if not a driving factor so it may not be necessary. 

I don’t mind changing the stock origin plane to verify each of the different ops, in fact I’m alright with not seeing the entire tombstone in verify as long as each part looks good on its own.

 

post-74711-0-20271900-1484954178_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my method:

 

Program your unique part (or multiple unique parts if you are running more than one part # on the tombstone), I create one tool group per unique part and keep all if its respective tool paths in it.

 

Then create a new tool groups for each tool # you are using in the program (this is not necessary if each tool only does one operation, but if you use a tool for multiple operations, or if you have more than one unique part on your tombstone this is necessary to create an efficient program). I usually just copy/paste the tool paths from my previous ops for this, but be warned, Mastercam likes to get really buggy the more you copy and paste stuff.

 

Then I create my my transform and/or translate tool groups. If there are multiple parts on each tombstone face then I create a new translate tool group that translates my desired pattern in the XY plane using all my previous tool groups. Then I create a new transform rotate tool group that uses the translate tool group to rotate around the tombstone. If you have one part per face of the tombstone then you can skip the translate step and just transform rotate.

 

This method offers good efficiency and flexibility, particularly when running multiple parts on multiple faces, even more so when you have multiple unique parts on a face with shared tools.

 

In House was working on a tombstone c hook a few years back, I don't think it went anywhere. In it's last configuration I saw, it wasn't going to solve any problems or do anything remotely close to the Gibbs system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just create the main program by hand and apply work offset shifting, subroutine calls and pallet rotations where needed. Getting it all done properly in Mastercam is not going to be "pretty".

 

I write up a one part program and use work offset creation macros along with systematic part routing macros that runs the parts as directed by the operators. There is a lot of work to get the macros and post tweaked in but once it is done you never have to think about it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.  I don't think hand editing is a good solution for our shop.  As for the grouping idea that is exactly how I was approaching it, but it gets tricky when you want to post out "prove out" programs for a single part calling for correctly unghosting the proper toolpaths.  That is why I was hoping that there was a cleaner solution like a zero transform or a better way to organize.

 

Can you give some insight into what it took to get that macro working properly?  

 

I'm sure that this isn't a unique problem and someone out there has a good solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.  I don't think hand editing is a good solution for our shop.  As for the grouping idea that is exactly how I was approaching it, but it gets tricky when you want to post out "prove out" programs for a single part calling for correctly unghosting the proper toolpaths.  That is why I was hoping that there was a cleaner solution like a zero transform or a better way to organize.

 

Can you give some insight into what it took to get that macro working properly?  

 

I'm sure that this isn't a unique problem and someone out there has a good solution.

 

I wonder if you misunderstood my method? I can run one part, all parts on one plane, all parts all planes, first part all planes etc in just a couple clicks of the mouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being facetious.

 

But, you can use verify on multiple pieces in mcam, draw up your multiple solids for your stock on one level, then save them all as one stl with a save as. 

 

Machine sim, is nice when you have post linked to it. Otherwise, multiaxis link for a workaround. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same way you verify/machine sim a hmc with multiple stock in MC, you don't!

 

Really?

 

 

Now you got me wondering what the  hell I do when I verify full tombstones with multiple pcs of stock and multiple in processes operation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is the same as what Sticky was referring to in the beginning.  I basically have a seed toolpath that all the Transform and translates point to for all the various scenarios I want to post.  I have the "assign new" checked in the rotates to create unique offsets for every face.  Unfortunately in order to get the correct work offsets I don't wind up with best efficiency because it does redundant tool changes due to the order of the transforms.  But at least since everything has unique NC file names so it posts out all scenarios at the same time without unghosting.

post-74711-0-23460200-1485279346_thumb.jpg

post-74711-0-52325700-1485279403_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

 

Now you got me wondering what the  hell I do when I verify full tombstones with multiple pcs of stock and multiple in processes operation

 

Sure you can hack and slash it together, that is not the point of the conversation. Why does cam software that was released in winter of 2003 have substantially more power in this arena than the latest version of mc, 14 years later?

 

JKermit83, I am familiar with your problem. I prefer to keep all of my transform or translate operations in a single respective tool group, instead of grouping them by tool number like you have, I just find it easier to navigate the program. Don't forget that you can add notes to your transform ops which makes them easier to track when you have dozens of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically yes you can do what you want to do in MCAM with a TON of transforms...one for every tool grouped by operation.  A dialog box to simplify this would make the tree much cleaner and less confusing.  Macro statements will basically do the same thing with variables that the transforms are doing (if they are at even spacing.)  This seems very cumbersome especially with a lot of tools, but once setup all you have to do is adjust your seed toolpaths.  I was hoping for a clean method, but for now this is the best I can come up with.  :construction:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically yes you can do what you want to do in MCAM with a TON of transforms...one for every tool grouped by operation.  A dialog box to simplify this would make the tree much cleaner and less confusing.  Macro statements will basically do the same thing with variables that the transforms are doing (if they are at even spacing.)  This seems very cumbersome especially with a lot of tools, but once setup all you have to do is adjust your seed toolpaths.  I was hoping for a clean method, but for now this is the best I can come up with.  :construction:

 

This was the conclusion I came up with in 2002 when we got our first horizontal. Transform does the job but it takes up valuable programming time and creates opportunity for mistakes that takes more time to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...