Mastercam 2020/2021 Stock Model Defect

[Corey Hampshire]

As I mentioned in the Mastercam 2021 thread I have an issue with the stock models in Mastercam 2020/2021. I contacted my reseller. They sent it up to CNC software and they logged it as Defect "D-39190". Per Mastercam, they have moved the defect up to High Priority. Hopefully they can get it figured out and we can update here at work. 

While Mastercam describes it as "Stock Model shows gouges with Area Rest Roughing operations" it happens on other ops, just not Area rest roughing. I worked up a dummy file to share with the community. FIrst stock model is good,  second one....well you will see.

 

Stock Model Defect.ZIP

[jlw™]

I've noticed this.  I think its in the tool path rather than stock model.  It will also show in Verify.  I have been able to get rid of it by using ridiculous linking parameters.  Most of the time though, I just let it go.  No problems in the machines yet.  I've not tried it on inconel as a little bump in inconel means a broke tool while you never know it in alu.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Corey Hampshire said:

As I mentioned in the Mastercam 2021 thread I have an issue with the stock models in Mastercam 2020/2021. I contacted my reseller. They sent it up to CNC software and they logged it as Defect "D-39190". Per Mastercam, they have moved the defect up to High Priority. Hopefully they can get it figured out and we can update here at work. 

While Mastercam describes it as "Stock Model shows gouges with Area Rest Roughing operations" it happens on other ops, just not Area rest roughing. I worked up a dummy file to share with the community. FIrst stock model is good,  second one....well you will see.

 

Stock Model Defect.ZIP

How do you create your stock model? I made one today with the simulator and it was covered in gouges on lead in/out location, using the stock model operation it came out nice..I don't use stock model much, so maybe it is just my settings

[gcode]

Have you tried mass editing you tool paths to force a tool change between all the operations

That may prevent linking motion from wrecking your stock model

[Corey Hampshire]

Thanks for the ideas guys. I changed all my retracts to 25 inches and no change. I also did force tool change and no change there either. Interestingly enough, verify (now called simulator I guess) shows no gouges so this seems to be an issue with stock models only. 

My models come from Solidworks. They are developed by the engineering department. It is important that I use the stock models especially when we are dealing with forgings. If the stock models are invalid I am pretty much stuck as I drive most of my tool paths off the stock. 

I think I am going to draw some wire frame up and use the curve multi axis path to force the transitions between paths. This may be a way to band-aid it for now. I will report back.

[Corey Hampshire]

Well....drawing in my own transition moves between paths didn't fix it.....

[Newbeeee™]

Long shot....

Clean file and import your Eng Dept solid works file.

Save as a mastercam file. The save as a step file. Close.

Open your programming file and import/use the converted "new" step.

[gcode]

Run the toolpaths in Verify

Save As an stl file

Use the stl file to define the next stock model

[Corey Hampshire]

I will give those suggestions a shot guys. Thanks!

[Corey Hampshire]

4 hours ago, gcode said:

Run the toolpaths in Verify

Save As an stl file

Use the stl file to define the next stock model

This seems to work for me.

Plus sides is I can actually use stock models. Big Plus. Also the regen time of the stock models is faster since it doesn't need to look at all the tool paths again. 

Double edge sword is you lose the associativity of the op driving the stock models. If I go back and change a tool path the stock model doesn't go dirty anymore as it is reading it from a file and not from those ops. This is good when changing something minor like a lead in/out but has potential to be bad if I change a stepdown. 

Negative is multiple STL files in the part file folder. It's not a huge deal at all as I am working off a server so space doesn't really matter to me. Just something to be aware of. 

[neurosis]

2 hours ago, Corey Hampshire said:

Negative is multiple STL files in the part file folder. It's not a huge deal at all as I am working off a server so space doesn't really matter to me. Just something to be aware of. 

If you don't want a clutter of STL files, save the stock model as a PMesh on to a level and then use that PMesh to recreate the stock model.  That will allow you to keep all of your stock geometry inside of your part file. 

[Corey Hampshire]

Thanks for the idea. Normally I make 3-4 stock models per part but there are some that I have 8-9. I will give that a shot going forward and see which way seems to flow better work flow wise.

[gcode]

41 minutes ago, Neurosis said:

If you don't want a clutter of STL files, save the stock model as a PMesh on to a level and then use that PMesh to recreate the stock model.  That will allow you to keep all of your stock geometry inside of your part file. 

This can make for some very large files, but it does have a second advantage

The files is self supporting

A couple of years ago a new manager decided to revamp the network and moved all out engineering files

That destroyed the file paths in 15 years worth of files

Saving as stl files inside your work file as a pmesh eliminates this problem at the cost of very large files

 

[crazy^millman]

Another trick is the Pmesh wash. Create a Stock model from Verify and bring into Mastercam to use a stock model and it is hollow. Create the Stock model from the Model file 1st. Then save the Pmesh to a level. Change the source from file to the Pmesh and you have washed the STL to be water tight in most cases.

Linking to an external stl file cost us a corporate account years ago. Works okay for most companies since the file locations normally never change at place. However as Gcode found out when it does chaos in sues. As an contract programmer the external stl file process will not work and give a customer a stable file. The best way is to Stock Model it or Pmesh it. Each have their drawbacks as talked about, but end of the day is the Stock model is just a reference not an end all. Using it as such is not a good idea in humble opinion. I have been kicking my stock models up to .02 tolerance and still getting good toolpaths and motion. Think of them as such and quit worrying about tight tolerance stock models on large files and parts. Small parts small files keep the tolerance at the default start getting bigger or larger then kick it up and see the benefits of smaller and more manageable files. Example current project has about 50 stock models. 45 of them .02 tolerance file size in about 1gb. Had I used default tolerances I wouldn't have a file to use. The file would be about 5gb and unusable.

[Corey Hampshire]

I like the pmesh idea. I have never liked using stl files for the reasoning that Ron mentioned. One of my "big" files is about 98 megs. I know this is a work around but it should allow use to update to 2021 and get back to the forefront of the software.

I will try the pmesh suggestions and look at the stock model tolerance and go from there. I for sure like everything being in one mastercam file. It makes things a lot neater and flexible in the future.

Thanks for all the help guys!

[jlw™]

I prefer to just stick with stock model so I have the associativity.  I realize that's exactly why most people don't like it but they always regen faster if you use the last stock model as the initial shape.  It only has to process the new toolpaths.  Set it here: