Sign in to follow this  
JB7280

Optirough Efficiency

Recommended Posts

I know it's not exactly necessary on this part, but I was playing around with optirough/rest, because I haven't used it much.  On my toolpath, it wants to do a pass about 1/8 inch below the stock, before dropping down to the full depth cut.  It seems like it'd be more efficient to start at the bottom and work up, so I'm guessing I have something set wrong.  Anyone know where I'm wrong?

 

333A072.mcam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

I know it's not exactly necessary on this part, but I was playing around with optirough/rest, because I haven't used it much.  On my toolpath, it wants to do a pass about 1/8 inch below the stock, before dropping down to the full depth cut.  It seems like it'd be more efficient to start at the bottom and work up, so I'm guessing I have something set wrong.  Anyone know where I'm wrong?

 

333A072.mcam

You have your top of stock in the steep and shallow setting at .846 when the top of stock is 1.000. Change it to that and regenerate and it does what you are after.

Get in the habit of defining your holders. Your lead in and out on the Finish OD could be rotate to be off a surface to avoid slamming the tool into the part face.

Overall nice work and good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

You have your top of stock in the steep and shallow setting at .846 when the top of stock is 1.000. Change it to that and regenerate and it does what you are after.

Get in the habit of defining your holders. Your lead in and out on the Finish OD could be rotate to be off a surface to avoid slamming the tool into the part face.

Overall nice work and good job.

Thanks Ron, fwiw it's I always define my holders, i'm just throwing toolpaths on this part at the moment.  I still need to define cutting tool p/n's, speeds and feeds, etc.  

 

Tried your advice, and it worked.  That seems to work differently than I expected.  I was using .846 to try to "force" the toolpath to start lower.  Perhaps I'm thinking about it incorrectly.  Also, thanks for the Finish OD suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

You have your top of stock in the steep and shallow setting at .846 when the top of stock is 1.000. Change it to that and regenerate and it does what you are after.

Get in the habit of defining your holders. Your lead in and out on the Finish OD could be rotate to be off a surface to avoid slamming the tool into the part face.

Overall nice work and good job.

I'm not able to change the start point.  I right clicked the chain, and clicked start point, then it gives me fwd, or back choices.  Both of them are ineffective because it's just a closed edge.  Do I need to make that wireframe in order to change the startpoint?  

And one additional ?...finishing the top face, I used an area mill, staying off the wall of the boss, followed by a contour of the boss.  Is there a better way?  I usually try to avoid area mill, as I don't care for the entry/exit arcs (not enough control, and unnecessary code for our older machines), and I don't care for the aesthetics of dynamic paths as finishing.  Maybe I'm just being too damn picky though!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

Thanks Ron, fwiw it's I always define my holders, i'm just throwing toolpaths on this part at the moment.  I still need to define cutting tool p/n's, speeds and feeds, etc.  

 

Tried your advice, and it worked.  That seems to work differently than I expected.  I was using .846 to try to "force" the toolpath to start lower.  Perhaps I'm thinking about it incorrectly.  Also, thanks for the Finish OD suggestion!

Okay I get it about the holders sorry.

The stock shape has to match if not then the toolpath is looking to that stock and not sure how to go about it. Your stock is really the boundary and yes OPTI-ROUGH will do some weird things when the top of stock is even a little off. The start point is changed on wireframe on a solid chain you cannot change it like that.

Nothing wrong with area mill to finish the top. Many ways to go about whatever gets you what you want is good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, crazy^millman said:

Okay I get it about the holders sorry.

The stock shape has to match if not then the toolpath is looking to that stock and not sure how to go about it. Your stock is really the boundary and yes OPTI-ROUGH will do some weird things when the top of stock is even a little off. The start point is changed on wireframe on a solid chain you cannot change it like that.

Awesome, Thanks again for the help.  I didn't expect a reply on a Friday night, haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JB7280 said:

Awesome, Thanks again for the help.  I didn't expect a reply on a Friday night, haha.

Well running some CAV on a 1650 operation part for a DMU80 DuoBlock Mill/Turn so killing time waiting for it to get done.

Glad to help. Have a good weekend.

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 9:07 PM, crazy^millman said:

Well running some CAV on a 1650 operation part for a DMU80 DuoBlock Mill/Turn so killing time waiting for it to get done.

Glad to help. Have a good weekend.

I didn't want to create a new thread with the same part.  For OP2 I want to position the parts roughly as they are in level 210.  How would you go about laying that out?  A seperate file? Would you create solids of the first operation finish state, and create an all new setup, or continue working off of the original stock model?  The second op transition is where things always get a little confusing for me.  I put an updated file in dropbox, because it's now too big to upload.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jgnhy6o8nz6z7e/333a072.mcam?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JB7280 said:

I didn't want to create a new thread with the same part.  For OP2 I want to position the parts roughly as they are in level 210.  How would you go about laying that out?  A seperate file? Would you create solids of the first operation finish state, and create an all new setup, or continue working off of the original stock model?  The second op transition is where things always get a little confusing for me.  I put an updated file in dropbox, because it's now too big to upload.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jgnhy6o8nz6z7e/333a072.mcam?dl=0

Sigh unseen. WCS and then new Toolpath group for Setup 2. I will review later. I want to give others time to review and give feedback. No one gives you an answer by the end of the day then I will give you my thoughts. Fair enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several ways to make it. It depends how you want to organize your work. On complex parts i usually make one file equals one setup.

However, here, part is simple so it'd be perhaps better to get all setups in the same file.

There are several ways to achieve it but my strategy is usually to move fixtures (not part designs) and use WCS/viewsheets.

In your case it's a little tricky as you're using one stock model for 2 parts. I usually keep 1 part per stock model (except if i need to verify) it makes things easier.

Then, I made a mesh from your OP1 stock model for 1 part only and made a copy of this mesh for 2nd part. Then make another stock model from these 2 if needed.

I updated your file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehick6vmsajvzl7/333A072-mod.mcam?dl=0

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, David Colin said:

There are several ways to make it. It depends how you want to organize your work. On complex parts i usually make one file equals one setup.

However, here, part is simple so it'd be perhaps better to get all setups in the same file.

There are several ways to achieve it but my strategy is usually to move fixtures (not part designs) and use WCS/viewsheets.

In your case it's a little tricky as you're using one stock model for 2 parts. I usually keep 1 part per stock model (except if i need to verify) it makes things easier.

Then, I made a mesh from your OP1 stock model for 1 part only and made a copy of this mesh for 2nd part. Then make another stock model from these 2 if needed.

I updated your file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehick6vmsajvzl7/333A072-mod.mcam?dl=0

 

 

Ok, I think that makes sense.  I do like the view sheets in this case.  I've never actually used them.  My issue was using the same part model, but changing the orientation of the parts, which you seem to have fixed by only reusing 1, then copying.  My original plan was to put toolpath on 1 part, then use transforms for the second part, but I couldn't seem to get the transforms to work how I wanted.  I noticed you have 2 stock models.  1 as a single part, and 1 as both parts.  You included both, just to show both options, but would normally only have one or the other, correct? 

 

Thanks for taking a look at it.

 

2 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Sigh unseen. WCS and then new Toolpath group for Setup 2. I will review later. I want to give others time to review and give feedback. No one gives you an answer by the end of the day then I will give you my thoughts. Fair enough? 

For sure.  I appreciate the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

 I noticed you have 2 stock models.  1 as a single part, and 1 as both parts.  You included both, just to show both options, but would normally only have one or the other, correct? 

 

The first one is an exact copy of your 'finished OP1' stock model but with stock part_1 only. I did it to export mesh for part_1 only, copying/transforming this mesh to make OP2 part 2 stock. This stock model toolpath can be delete after meshes export. I let it in the file as it's part of the process. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, David Colin said:

The first one is an exact copy of your 'finished OP1' stock model but with stock part_1 only. I did it to export mesh for part_1 only, copying/transforming this mesh to make OP2 part 2 stock. This stock model toolpath can be delete after meshes export. I let it in the file as it's part of the process. 

Gotcha.  I also noticed you created a new machine group.  In the past, I had just been creating a new toolpath parent group called OP2, or whatever op it was.  Any reason you used a new machine group?  I know a lot of things are just personal preference, but I thought maybe there's a reason.  I suppose with your way, it would be easier to put the parts on 2 different machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is to clearly separate setups and you can select different machines easily. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, David Colin said:

Yes, this is to clearly separate setups and you can select different machines easily. 

Makes sense.  And thanks again for taking a look!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave did an excellent job of giving you a way to go about it. I would program one part in OP1 and use Transform to program the 2nd Part. Then you could use one model for OP1 and OP2 using your WCS to control everything. They way you have it will get the job done, but to me from a programming stand point creates a lot of extra work. Agree ViewSheets are helpful. Currently knee deep programming so don't have time to really make a file up showing you what I am thinking. 

Think about what I have said and see if you figure out what I am saying and how I would go about it. Envision it and then see if that makes sense. David is spot on if moving to a different machine then yes you need anew machine group. However if it is staying in the same machine then only one machine group is needed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Dave did an excellent job of giving you a way to go about it. I would program one part in OP1 and use Transform to program the 2nd Part. Then you could use one model for OP1 and OP2 using your WCS to control everything. They way you have it will get the job done, but to me from a programming stand point creates a lot of extra work. Agree ViewSheets are helpful. Currently knee deep programming so don't have time to really make a file up showing you what I am thinking. 

Think about what I have said and see if you figure out what I am saying and how I would go about it. Envision it and then see if that makes sense. David is spot on if moving to a different machine then yes you need anew machine group. However if it is staying in the same machine then only one machine group is needed.

 

I will play with it more tomorrow.  I couldn't get the optirest to behave correctly with a transform, otherwise I'd have used it.  Perhaps over Thanksgiving break I'll take my pc home and play with it some more when I'm not under the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT but, why do you have your Entry/Exit angle set at 120 degrees?  Any particular reason?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AMCNitro said:

OT but, why do you have your Entry/Exit angle set at 120 degrees?  Any particular reason?

 

Funny question, when I started programming, it was with Esprit, and the guy who taught me liked those teardrop shaped entry/exits.  I can't remember how you do it now, (its been a few years since I've touched Esprit) but you did something like 66%/33%/33% on your entry/exit page.  So really it's just a habit I got into, and nothing more than that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 5:25 PM, AMCNitro said:

OT but, why do you have your Entry/Exit angle set at 120 degrees?  Any particular reason?

 

If I am inside of a hole I will use 135 degrees so that it has less of a chance of gouging the part. Old habit from before they had gouge check on entry/exit moves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 7:14 AM, JB7280 said:

Funny question, when I started programming, it was with Esprit, and the guy who taught me liked those teardrop shaped entry/exits.  I can't remember how you do it now, (its been a few years since I've touched Esprit) but you did something like 66%/33%/33% on your entry/exit page.  So really it's just a habit I got into, and nothing more than that.

I haven't used Esprit in over a year since my last job, and I don't miss it one bit.  It was a 4 year disaster.  I'm glad to be back with Mastercam 2020 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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