Mastercam 2022 Multi-Axis

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

It's just there in the NCI, there's no option to enable/disable it in the dialog.

So we need to set up misc values + logic in our post processor to work with it?

[cncappsjames]

31 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

It's just there in the NCI, there's no option to enable/disable it in the dialog.

So @Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software what mode is the compensation? Wear, Control, or Reverse Wear?

[huskermcdoogle]

11 minutes ago, cncappsjames said:

So @Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software what mode is the compensation? Wear, Control, or Reverse Wear?

Well.... given the data you are given in the NCI, I suppose with some math's it could pretty easily be any of the above.  Now, interfacing a method of selecting the comp method with CAMplete, no idea how that would be done.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, huskermcdoogle said:

21 minutes ago, cncappsjames said:

So @Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software what mode is the compensation? Wear, Control, or Reverse Wear?

Well.... given the data you are given in the NCI, I suppose with some math's it could pretty easily be any of the above.  Now, interfacing a method of selecting the comp method with CAMplete, no idea how that would be done.

Soooo, the implementation is on the camplete side of things from what you are saying, but there is no switch on the operation to pass that information fwd..

[Chally72]

5 axis comp is a different world than 2D profile comp. The moves spit out by these multiaxis paths are all NCI line 11 moves (multiaxis moves) even if you, for example, locked your axis combo to 3 axes, so G41/G42 are out the window without an extensive logic tree in the post side of things to figure out if they'd even be valid. The post must do the heavy lifting to take this contact point and vector direction from the NCI and determine whether or not it can be comped, and how to comp it in a manner that the machine control supports. Wear/reverse wear could be passed to the post via a misc value- that's the easiest part of this. 

[huskermcdoogle]

4 minutes ago, Thee Byte™ said:

Soooo, the implementation is on the camplete side of things from what you are saying, but there is no switch on the operation to pass that information fwd..

Well you could use a misc integer/real.  But how to change things on the CAMplete side to take that info and do something with it.  I have no idea.  I am not a camplete user.  With a normal mp.dll post.  Not a problem.

 

[Metallic]

Maybe someone can enlighten me on this cuz I asked a similar question about comping 5 axis toolpaths several years ago, and the answer i got is that Cutter Comp doesn't work on multiaxis the way you think it does like with 3 axis work, so I dropped it.

At least on my multiaxis post, I haven't ever used or seen G41.2 and Im not sure I would need to...most of the comping that I would do on a multiaxis toolpath would be done in the parameters by removing stock from drive surfaces and containment boundaries etc etc...

So are you telling me that I can setup my post to output G41.2 and use it with misc values to do Wear Compensation at the control??? Because that would be nice if it is "easy" to do.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Chally72 said:

5 axis comp is a different world than 2D profile comp. The moves spit out by these multiaxis paths are all NCI line 11 moves (multiaxis moves) even if you, for example, locked your axis combo to 3 axes, so G41/G42 are out the window without an extensive logic tree in the post side of things to figure out if they'd even be valid. The post must do the heavy lifting to take this contact point and vector direction from the NCI and determine whether or not it can be comped, and how to comp it in a manner that the machine control supports. Wear/reverse wear could be passed to the post via a misc value- that's the easiest part of this. 

The starting point would still be to have a switch in the operation to control it, passing values via a misc value seems more error prone imo, not the best solution for something commonly needed.

2 minutes ago, Metallic said:

Maybe someone can enlighten me on this cuz I asked a similar question about comping 5 axis toolpaths several years ago, and the answer i got is that Cutter Comp doesn't work on multiaxis the way you think it does like with 3 axis work, so I dropped it.

Earlier in the topic Aaron said it's only since 2018

[cncappsjames]

In CAMplete, I've got a setting to specify 3D Comp enabled toolpaths ID'd by op type number. I'll I can add or subtract to this list if I feel so inclined. 

My main point in this whole discussion is in Old-School 5-Axis Flowing, Curve 5-Axis and Old School Swarf the comp selection method is there. The new MW paths it is not. For me the post question is irrelevant. I can get whatever output I need by any number of methods. 

Should be a pretty simple ask IMHO. And if comp is supported, is it left, right, wear, or control, or reverse wear. I fully understand 3D Tool Comp works "differently", however I want to know that I'm going to get G41.2/G42.2 , or whatever other comp option I'm choosing... AND what data I need to put into my comp table in the control. When I get to select what I want, I know what data to put in the offset table. No selection means I've gotta guess. So, forgive me if I'd prefer to not guess when I'm running somebody's $800,000 or $1,000,000 investment.

[huskermcdoogle]

32 minutes ago, Metallic said:

So are you telling me that I can setup my post to output G41.2 and use it with misc values to do Wear Compensation at the control??? Because that would be nice if it is "easy" to do.

Depends on what type of toolpaths you are trying to comp.....   There are multiple types of comp that can be used. 

For full 5x surfacing type paths you would need the 3D comp option, and you would have to provide the machine with a comp vector on every line of code.  I have never implemented this type of comp.  I have had the need to in the past, but settled with just having a few different versions of the posted code to get by.  I had some different technical issues in my way.  One of which was that the MW paths did not port the info I needed at the time (surface contact point, and surface normal vector).  Certain considerations also need to be made around cutter size and comp amount with concave geometry, making sure you don't comp yourself into an opposing surface, which get far more complicated when we start thinking in a 3D multi-axis situation instead of a 2D contour.

For 2D Contour and curve5x type operations with G41.2/G42.2 in a Head/Head machine, really it isn't that hard to implement.  The control figures out the comp vector and life is good.  Though, sometimes you will get errors due to lookahead which have to do with the control not being able to figure out a comp vector on small point to point moves, but mostly it works just fine.  I am sure there are ways of fixing this, but I never had the time to figure out mathematically what the control was having trouble with.  You end up basically just replacing G41 with G41.2 and move on.   The best method IMHO here is have your post output G68.2 for any planar work and use G41/G42, your contouring code will be more concise using arcs and lines, and you won't have issues with the machine potentially alarming out regardless of comp value.  For curve5x type paths, you could implement it to use G41.2, and for the most part, it would work without issue.

 

Edit:  I will add that this is assuming mainly just for wear type comp applications.  I haven't been in a situation to test full radius comp with G41.2 in a curve5x type path.  I personally make it my practice to never use full Radius comp with I have a CAM system at my disposal.  If I will need to make significant edits at the machine or when building a macro of some type, I will consider full radius comp, as it can simplify the code and math required to get it running, especially around rolling corners or adding chamfers.

Ohhhhh, I could go on for days on this subject, wish I had a need to dig into this further and could do some testing.  I'd love to be able to provide people with some good hard and clear data / guidelines on 5ax comp methods and practices.  It truly opens up tons of options and improves operability at the machine for production and prototype type 5ax work.  It also affords shops the ability to better lock down their programs on their most expensive and critical equipment and hopefully prevent more crashes and programming errors down the line.  I'd much rather be changing a comp value than reposting and running a "proven" Mastercam file.  We all know mistakes can be made.  Now if you use CAV, like Vericut or Camplete, well, that would take some time to rerun your "comp" program through it, so you would be saving time by just using comp.  

[cncappsjames]

11 hours ago, Thee Byte™ said:

Soooo, the implementation is on the camplete side of things from what you are saying, but there is no switch on the operation to pass that information fwd..

Not really. I still need the selection... if for no other reason than as a guide for what the comp table values need to be.

[Aaron Eberhard]

Sorry about the delay, I haven't been had time to stop by this forum since yesterday morning.

To answer the questions from @cncappsjames, @huskermcdoogle, & @Thee Byte™ - I'm not 100% sure how the posts are implementing the changes but the control guys and the customers using it seemed happy enough with how it's done..  I try to avoid post stuff whenever I can

@Metallic - You'll need to work with your control & post guys to make sure you machine is actually able to do it, you have all the license options needed on the control, and then finally have your post output it.

As far as I'm aware, the (still surprisingly few?) controls that can actually do 5 axis comp only ever do wear..  I've never seen a spec for reverse-wear or control comp in multiaxis, that sounds dangerous to me!   But I haven't seen every control comp spec, so I'm very open to being shown wrong here

Just as a note, I'm going to stop replying to comp discussion on this thread, as I don't want to clutter it up (more than!) it's already been.  I did create a new thread to bring this all under one roof, so you can tell me what exactly you're missing now.