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:

Changing WCS


Recommended Posts

I just finished up a program and had to move the part on the fixture. It shifted in the Y (HMC) by 0.75". The Y zero is located on the bottom of my part so that had to shift as well. I moved the part and Toolplane up in Y, but the toolpaths didn't follow the part. I cleared the geometry and re-selected my hole locations, but it's completely off now. What am I doing wrong?? 

Capture.PNG

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 8:48 AM, cncappsjames said:

If you use "incremental" for your toolpath depths, retracts, and clearances, you can move things wherever you want and they'll regen. Use absolute and you'll be repicking everything. 

It's a nice idea, but there have been so many bugs associated to incremental that I wouldn't recommend it.

On 1/9/2020 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Hajicek™ - Conventus said:

Also if you define your work offsets relative to geometry and keep it associative you can easily reposition and reorient them later.

This works well when the WCS associativity actually works, which isn't often enough, but it does seem to be more reliable than purely using incremental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sticky said:

It's a nice idea, but there have been so many bugs associated to incremental that I wouldn't recommend it.

I've been using "incremental" on everything with rare exception since 7... V7with no issues related to that. Not saying there aren't any issues, but I've got 20+ solid years backing up that method. 

:coffee:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been buggy since at least X5, and still is up to 2018. It worked fine in V9 which is the only older version I've used.

I wish it worked better as I like the idea of using incremental, but it is more unreliable than using associative wcs' (which is also unreliable), but when you have a hundred plus wcs' to manage you use whatever method screws you the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sticky said:

It's been buggy since at least X5, and still is up to 2018. It worked fine in V9 which is the only older version I've used.

I wish it worked better as I like the idea of using incremental, but it is more unreliable than using associative wcs' (which is also unreliable), but when you have a hundred plus wcs' to manage you use whatever method screws you the least.

The only time I've found incremental buggy is when there were geometry at different heights for a pocket or dynamic type feature where 2 or more chains are used.

 

Then it is hit or miss what depth it uses.

 

But for 5 axis work we just move the 5 axis home WCS and repost if simulation is needed.  Mostly now we just use the probe to set the face of the fixture

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I just saw these responses. Thank you guys for your input.

 

 

On 1/9/2020 at 11:48 AM, cncappsjames said:

If you use "incremental" for your toolpath depths, retracts, and clearances, you can move things wherever you want and they'll regen. Use absolute and you'll be repicking everything. 

I currently use incremental for everything but my depth. I like to either choose geometry for my depth or punch it in manually based on the print so that I can machine to the high side of a tolerance.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Hajicek™ - Conventus said:

Also if you define your work offsets relative to geometry and keep it associative you can easily reposition and reorient them later.

I usually make my Tool Plane relative to a fixture, but I guess it would be smarter to start using this method. I tend to move things around a bit as a program if I find more efficient ways to execute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the problem I was having had to do with my selection. I was the selecting inside of the hole. I ended up making a plane perpendicular to the hole and drawing the 2D geometry to select for the toolpath. It may be because I'm using Mastercam for Solidworks. There seem to be some bugs in it, but I still prefer it over Mastercam due to the CAD side of things.

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...