Otirough overcut gouge

[JB7280]

I am roughing this surface with an Optirough toolpath.  I have this surface selected as Machining Geometry, with .020 wall/floor stock.  I tried changing to .030 stock and it totally changes the toolpath with a lot of unnecessary motion and air cutting.  I also tried changing ONLY that surface to .030 wall/floor and it gave me the same toolpath with lots of waste moves.

 

[Colin Gilchrist]

As a test, try creating a brand-new path with the new settings, versus changing a path with existing settings. Also, any chance you have different geometry selected, possibly on a level that is invisible? How about your Tool Definition? Is it a tool by chance which has been updated from previous versions of Mastercam, or is it a new Tool Definition?

[JB7280]

3 hours ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

As a test, try creating a brand-new path with the new settings, versus changing a path with existing settings. Also, any chance you have different geometry selected, possibly on a level that is invisible? How about your Tool Definition? Is it a tool by chance which has been updated from previous versions of Mastercam, or is it a new Tool Definition?

I did what you suggested, and didn't really get any different results, however I kept playing with it, and changing things slightly, and ended up fixing it by leaving .030 stock instead of .020.  Odd, as I had tried that before, and got an entirely different toolpath.  Either way, the simulation shows that the gouge is gone.  We will find out on Monday whether it actually is.  Thank you!

[Guest]

Why did you not see this before sending it to the machine?

Are you using the compare function in verify?

[JB7280]

20 hours ago, Thee Byte™ said:

Why did you not see this before sending it to the machine?

Are you using the compare function in verify?

I had a scrap part to test on.  I did see it, but occasionally I get weird artifacts like that in the rendering, that don't actually show up on the parts.  That is also not a critical area, and I needed to run the other features so QC could start checking things.  So I ran this part, knowing that gouge might be there, with the intention of fixing it while QC was doing their thing.  In comparison to a lot of guys, I'm pretty inexperienced, so maybe my workflow isn't always the greatest.  Always trying to improve my efficiency though.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

I had a scrap part to test on.  I did see it, but occasionally I get weird artifacts like that in the rendering, that don't actually show up on the parts.  That is also not a critical area, and I needed to run the other features so QC could start checking things.  So I ran this part, knowing that gouge might be there, with the intention of fixing it while QC was doing their thing.  In comparison to a lot of guys, I'm pretty inexperienced, so maybe my workflow isn't always the greatest.  Always trying to improve my efficiency though.

Ah, okay, so the gouges you see that don't appear are usually the result of the lead in, 

use the accurate zoom function to see the real result.

You should always accurate zoom gouges if they do not dissapear, they are real.

[Metallic]

I know this is solved but I sometimes get collisions or gouges like that when my curl-in/out is off. Using collision check in verify shows it as such so I can modify. Do you run verify with the color loop engaged? I find that super helpful

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Metallic said:

I know this is solved but I sometimes get collisions or gouges like that when my curl-in/out is off. Using collision check in verify shows it as such so I can modify. Do you run verify with the color loop engaged? I find that super helpful

The color loop is good for seeing which material was cut by which tool.

 

Compare should be used when checking for gouges.

[JParis]

Have you checked the solid to see if it's watertight?

I have had solids with bad faces that I usually patch over with surfaces and that gets me by....my suspicion if the solid is crap...

 

[Colin Gilchrist]

21 hours ago, JParis said:

Have you checked the solid to see if it's watertight?

I have had solids with bad faces that I usually patch over with surfaces and that gets me by....my suspicion if the solid is crap...

 

Another secret is to just create surfaces in the areas like this, that you need them. This also cuts down on processing time, if you are not selecting "an entire solid" to be processed, when you are restricting the cutting with a boundary.

[JB7280]

20 hours ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

Another secret is to just create surfaces in the areas like this, that you need them. This also cuts down on processing time, if you are not selecting "an entire solid" to be processed, when you are restricting the cutting with a boundary.

So this was my mistake.  I used 2d swept to surface that radius, and it didn't generate the radius the way I thought it would.  That gouge remained, because all the material hadn't been removed.  I ended up using a raster tool path, and all is well in the world.  Oops!!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

So this was my mistake.  I used 2d swept to surface that radius, and it didn't generate the radius the way I thought it would.  That gouge remained, because all the material hadn't been removed.  I ended up using a raster tool path, and all is well in the world.  Oops!!

There are a lot of critical aspects in surface creation, the most importing is that as you curve or change shape, you need to increase the amount of projections drastically.

I need to make some videos about creating surfaces where I dive into testing surfaces.

You need to use the offset surface feature to check the bleedthrough between the two surfaces.

You goal should be to be accurate within .0005" for all surfaces at first.

This isnt practical all the time, but it is important to master this skill, in my opinion.

[Colin Gilchrist]

1 hour ago, Thee Byte™ said:

There are a lot of critical aspects in surface creation, the most importing is that as you curve or change shape, you need to increase the amount of projections drastically.

I need to make some videos about creating surfaces where I dive into testing surfaces.

You need to use the offset surface feature to check the bleedthrough between the two surfaces.

You goal should be to be accurate within .0005" for all surfaces at first.

This isnt practical all the time, but it is important to master this skill, in my opinion.

This is correct. Accuracy of the models affects accuracy of the Toolpath centerline code, which in turn affects the accuracy you can hold on your machines. For many smaller high-accuracy parts, my tolerance is about 100-1000x smaller. The default tolerance settings no longer cut it, so you've got tighten everything up to make Mastercam capable of holding millionths of an inch, or tenths of a Micron.

[JB7280]

6 hours ago, Thee Byte™ said:

There are a lot of critical aspects in surface creation, the most importing is that as you curve or change shape, you need to increase the amount of projections drastically.

I need to make some videos about creating surfaces where I dive into testing surfaces.

You need to use the offset surface feature to check the bleedthrough between the two surfaces.

You goal should be to be accurate within .0005" for all surfaces at first.

This isnt practical all the time, but it is important to master this skill, in my opinion.

What I actually meant was, I used the 2D swept toolpath.  Didn't actually have to create any surfaces.  I definitely have a lot to learn as far as creating surfaces, and things like that.  If I need to, it's generally just to fill a hole, or break an existing surface into 2 or something like that.  Always room for improvement though!