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:

Machine Simulation False Collisions


Corey Hampshire
 Share

Recommended Posts

Playing with Machine Sim for the first time and ran into an issue. I am doing 4 axis work. When the Operation changes, and the plane changes, Simulation shows a false collision. I don't see this in real life, as the tool retracts on the Z axis, part rotates and then we go about our merry way cutting.

I know that Machine sim isn't driven off the post, and that something like Verisurf would be better, but my hands are tied for now. I would like to get Simulation to not show me false collisions and be able to use what I have here at my disposal. I am not able to use Multi axis link as I have limited travel and my parts are actually too big for my machine.

Any advice would be appreciated, as I am sure it is a drop down box or check box in the simulation settings that I am likely missing. Here is a video of what I am running into. I am just getting started in Simulator and am sure that I will run into other issues in the future, but hey, isn't that half the fun?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Corey Hampshire said:

Any advice would be appreciated, as I am sure it is a drop down box or check box in the simulation settings that I am likely missing.

Yeah Don't expect much out of it if you're not paying to tie the post to it

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand why Mastercam even messes with machine sim since its only good for showing off to the customers that come through the office, the fact you have to pay to tie it to your post is absolutely ridiculus.  This is my biggest gripe about Mastercam, can someone explain the reasoning other than the $$$$$$$. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TGilpin said:

I guess I don't understand why Mastercam even messes with machine sim since its only good for showing off to the customers that come through the office, the fact you have to pay to tie it to your post is absolutely ridiculus.  This is my biggest gripe about Mastercam, can someone explain the reasoning other than the $$$$$$$. 

If you don't wanna pay you could always write your own..:sofa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback guys. I spoke with my re-seller and they mentioned tying it to the post. I may end up going that route in the future. Would have to get the boss on board with that. 

They were able to give me a work around for my particular issue. I had to go to Machine def/control def/linear and toggle the top radio button to  "All Axis Arrive at Destination Simultaneously" under the Rapid Motion box.This is read by the machine sim and fixed my issue. That said, my post was edited in the past to break up my moves so that it doesn't move X,Y,Z,A all together. Use this solution at your own risk. For me it was easy since I know that my post will be handling it differently on the back end.

I am still building everything I need in simulator and am sure I will probably get tripped up on something else as I go. Thanks everyone for the advice and I appreciate the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until then, I have been creating a new stock model at the end of operations as a habit. Then I go into my simulator options and select stock model; (end of op 1), then just machinesim op2, then same for op 3. Takes a little more time, but seems to work alright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, transitions like this are difficult because we don't know what the post behavior will be for the transition- (though any good post will retract in Z, then XY, then position rotaries, then preposition XY, then preposition Z.) You'll note that what's happening when the rotary is positioned is that the tool stays at the relative XYZ coordinate of the last point of the previous toolpath, and then you just get a vector change. This often results in a collision depending on where the new rotary position is at.

There is a way to get rid of these collisions between plane changes. Go and edit your control definition and look at the Linear page. For Rapid Motion control, change it to "Linear Interpolate at maximum feed rate". The main function of this rapid motion control is to control if your machine has synchronized rapids, but one of the other side effects is that this setting below will allow a 'free move' between plane changes when re-positioning, which removes the machine simulation collision and eliminates the need for a big giant multiaxis link op just to get through a simulation cleanly.

 

Simulation.thumb.jpg.1509659107d610cfa3270cdadbc2bdcd.jpg

 

If you've modified the disk copy of the control def, make sure to reload it into your local file for the changes to take effect. Also note that this will NOT show dogleg rapids in Verify or Simulation anymore, since we are telling Mastercam that we're now working on a machine with synchronized rapids. 

 

Hope this helps!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chally72 said:

(though any good post will retract in Z, then XY, then position rotaries, then preposition XY, then preposition Z.)

Careful saying this.....    Soon as you speak in absolutes lightning will strike and it won't be true anymore...   Many times that you wouldn't actually do this.  But as default behavior on a table/table machine, sure, no hurt as long as you have the option to suppress it or use another method on the fly via misc ints/reals.  No need to get the tool out of there and then get back in if you don't need to.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy to report that this is working for me. I have been able to use it for some basic collision checking. I am working to improve our process and part of that is using as short of tools as possible. Down by the rotary table it becomes an issue. With the collision checking, and after making STL files for our setup, I can accurately check the clearance of my setups. I have been playing with different tilt controls than I normally use on that operation to come up with a solution. It's not Verisurf or Camplete, but it is doing what I need it to do for now. 

Cahlly72, you are spot on. My reseller had me select the second radio button in the same box that you said. Looks like either one of the last two options will fix the issue. Thanks for the info and pictures! My post does have all the moves broken up when the part changes planes just as you describe. I appreciate everyones help and input on this. This forum is awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 4:10 PM, 5th Axis CGI said:

You going to have to use REF points to get it far enough away for the transition moves in Machinesim then switch them back to what they were when you go to run it on the real machine. Or buy a post with your Machinesim tied to it like JParis mentioned.

You just got me thinking that I might be able to have the post reset the ref points, in the ncfile only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just now, So not a Guru said:

You just got me thinking that I might be able to have the post reset the ref points, in the ncfile only.

Machsim won't recognize them....my post handles jump heights automagially, machsim does not see them....I have to set high clearance heights, then switch them back after I'm good on part & tool clearances

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, huskermcdoogle said:

Careful saying this.....    Soon as you speak in absolutes lightning will strike and it won't be true anymore...   Many times that you wouldn't actually do this.  But as default behavior on a table/table machine, sure, no hurt as long as you have the option to suppress it or use another method on the fly via misc ints/reals.  No need to get the tool out of there and then get back in if you don't need to.

Right, which is why we don't know/can't assume this behavior well at the Machsim level if the post isn't hooked up. If head/head, my example 'safe motion' would be a very bad assumption.

 

There were two switches introduced in 2020 in the Simulation section of Configuration- Tool Starts from home position after tool change, and Go to home position on tool plane change, that can now help behavior like this if you take the time to set up home/reference points in each operation, but it's definitely not for the beginner/takes time to first understand, then set up properly for each program/toolpath. I'd rather recommend synchronizing rapids in the control def and giving it that 'free' move, and then taking the time to understand your post behavior during that move for your specific machine configuration.

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

or just don't bother using it at all which is where I'm at....something that used to work, now....is useless to me..Not even 25% of the way through this part and I am quite certain these are not happening....heck, it's all in the same tool...and on the last 3, there are NO rotational changes at all...

I sent my last one in...it was gone through and I was informed it was a singularity issue. Considering it's only 3+1 work and there's only 1 rotary axis and no simultaneous cutting, explanation doesn't wash with me...  I moved on as I was not going to program a 600 operation program in an older version....

Now part, this one not a single transform, though it is 330 OPs...and again it's a mess...

I'm done with it....my reseller tried in vain, to get a me a test version with a post tied to simulation, they couldn't pull that off...after 4 attempts and a persistent licensing issue and the time...I gave up on that...

I've been a fanboi for a LONG TIME, I've supported the product from the otherside of the telephone.....I am about near my wits with this....

I'm sure it must be me though...maybe I should start a blog

WYQyi7i.png

shdWs3w.png

HfMd4XX.png

bZC0cqq.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 5th Axis CGI said:

⬆️ CAV ⬆️

Machinesim is great and tell any customer on a budget to go with Machinesim, but CAV is better IMHO. You get what you pay for and get the results of that choice. Pay me now or pay me later and sorry, but your company is doing the later never having invested in CAV. 

Ron, believe me I know....I've had quotes from Vericut & NCSIMUL.....they're still just sitting on my desk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at the same point. Have quotes from Vericut, NCSIMUL and iCAM waiting. We've had two significant crashes in the last 6 months with repairs costing 150-200k, and somehow STILL have no movement on verification software. Both issues were caused by fat fingers from the operator that we would like to have resolved...

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...