scallop problem with equal scallop toolpath

[Sigurd]

This is a photo of a part I'm working on. All was well until I surfaced the entire pocket area; scalloping on the walls. Now, this is not a critical part, but I'd like to be able to control this. Is this an arc filter/tolerance settings issue? I've attached my file as well, just the toolpath I was using. Thanks.

 

locating ring scallop.mcam

I should add that in the file I uploaded, "Create Arcs in XY" is checked. It was NOT checked when I ran the part. 

[crazy^millman]

52 minutes ago, Sigurd said:

This is a photo of a part I'm working on. All was well until I surfaced the entire pocket area; scalloping on the walls. Now, this is not a critical part, but I'd like to be able to control this. Is this an arc filter/tolerance settings issue? I've attached my file as well, just the toolpath I was using. Thanks.

 

locating ring scallop.mcam

I should add that in the file I uploaded, "Create Arcs in XY" is checked. It was NOT checked when I ran the part. 

You answered your own question. Yes that was an arc issue with the filter settings. You would have to set the tolerance very low to create the point point moves need to make it look smooth. Looser the settings the worse the finish. The tighter the settings the better the finish if not using arc. Using arcs you get a lot more freedom with tolerances and still get nice looking features.

[AMCNitro]

 I would not use scallop,  if I were programing it Id go with 2D Swept.

 

P.S. I did it for you, but the website wont let upload it

[Sigurd]

I'd be curious to see your 2D Swept geometry if you can get it uploaded. Is the Across geometry in a section view?

[AMCNitro]

[cncappsjames]

Sometimes Old-School is the best school. Not to dig on new stuff because I like new toys as much as anyone else.

But Coons Surface, Circle Mill, Helix Bore, Flowline, etc...... for certain shapes/topologies there is NOTHING better. 

[Sigurd]

I tried Flowline, but it had issues with the changing offset side. I wanted one path to cut down the wall, into the corner radius, flat across the floor, and then coming back up along that 45-deg cone. Hybrid got me there, mostly. There are some junk moves that I can't seem to get rid of. They left some gouges in the corner radius. Again, not critical on this part, but I'd like to be able to control them.

I turned on G187 P3 E.001 and cut tolerance/line arc tolerance of 62/38, G17, G18, G19 and one-way filtering. I must have gotten lucky. It fixed the scalloping problem, and the machine ran mostly shudder-free.

I went back and rechained the area with surfaces, and it looks cleaner. What do you think? Stepdown and stepover are loosened so I can post the file.

locating ring hybrid.mcam

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Sigurd said:

I tried Flowline, but it had issues with the changing offset side. I wanted one path to cut down the wall, into the corner radius, flat across the floor, and then coming back up along that 45-deg cone. Hybrid got me there, mostly. There are some junk moves that I can't seem to get rid of.

There is a function for reversing the surface normal.

[AMCNitro]

21 minutes ago, Sigurd said:

I tried Flowline, but it had issues with the changing offset side. I wanted one path to cut down the wall, into the corner radius, flat across the floor, and then coming back up along that 45-deg cone. Hybrid got me there, mostly. There are some junk moves that I can't seem to get rid of. They left some gouges in the corner radius. Again, not critical on this part, but I'd like to be able to control them.

I turned on G187 P3 E.001 and cut tolerance/line arc tolerance of 62/38, G17, G18, G19 and one-way filtering. I must have gotten lucky. It fixed the scalloping problem, and the machine ran mostly shudder-free.

I went back and rechained the area with surfaces, and it looks cleaner. What do you think? Stepdown and stepover are loosened so I can post the file.

locating ring hybrid.mcam

2D swept or revolve produces very clean motion, one of the reasons I use it.  A programmer needs to have a "bag of tricks", you dont want to be stuck on 2 or 3 TPs.

[Sigurd]

9 minutes ago, AMCNitro said:

2D swept or revolve produces very clean motion, one of the reasons I use it.  A programmer needs to have a "bag of tricks", you dont want to be stuck on 2 or 3 TPs.

And I see that's where you're going in the picture you posted. How did you get that geometry drawn?

[crazy^millman]

9 minutes ago, Sigurd said:

And I see that's where you're going in the picture you posted. How did you get that geometry drawn?

Draw a line in the front or right view. Project that line to the features you want using Transform/Project/Surfaces or Solid faces. I don't like using revolve it can make some wrong geometry from time to time.

[AMCNitro]

25 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Draw a line in the front or right view. Project that line to the features you want using Transform/Project/Surfaces or Solid faces. I don't like using revolve it can make some wrong geometry from time to time.

What Ron said.

About revolve, I don't really use it a lot either, but I was trying to give him another option.  I feel like there's a  lot of newer programmers that don't know about the original TPs, and they are still very useful.  Everyone wants to use surfaces.

[bd41612]

If you have a multi-axis license, Morph (under Triangular Mesh) gives a lot of control.  Not needed in this instance, but something to keep in mind.