Jump to content

Welcome to eMastercam

Register now to participate in the forums, access the download area, buy Mastercam training materials, post processors and more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Use your display name or email address to sign in:

high speed opti rough


furqan
 Share

Recommended Posts

good morning

i am trying to optirough tool path

problem i m facing is cutting depth is not reaching maximum depth of bottom face.tried different step down settings but still no luck.

always leave stock in bottom .

please how to improve

also for aluminum if i use 3/16 endmill what is recommended step down and  step over.

thanks

furqi 

hs.jpg

cav.mcam

Link to comment
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AHarrison1 said:

I find that putting a value into 'Stepup" nets the desired results. If I have no features that need ruffing above my Stepdown value then my Stepup=Stepdown.

If there are things like bosses or rads/chamfers then Stepup is about 10% - 20% of cutter dia

image.png.068c47001fd0b6a38257b51c349f4762.png

Putting a Stepup value in that matches the Stepdown value will basically tell Optirough to machine all flats that occur within the Stepdown window. Stepup values that do not match the Stepups will net you terrace steps that may or may not actually clear away material on ledges and such to the exact amount of Stock On requested in the geometry page.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chally72 said:

Stepup values that do not match the Stepups will net you terrace steps that may or may not actually clear away material on ledges and such to the exact amount of Stock On requested in the geometry page.

I have found that if it does not hit the ledge then it is a culmination of stock to leave and Minimum toolpath radius on the cut parameter page. I do find myself adjusting the radius to get the tool to fit.

image.png.1787b5f7f300815d356d0b39f1675950.png

With the stepup and stepdown, it took me a while to grasp what was going on. Initially what I was doing was taking total stepdown minus floor stock and then dividing the result into equal steps in order to reach the bottom. Once I started playing with the stepup option all my extra math stuff went away...twas a revelation I tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely gets complex quickly if you have Stock to Leave values other than zero on your floor surfaces, too. If you're having to use specific increments/math on the stepups, the Adjust for Stock to Leave checkbox above the min/max depth field is there to automatically shift those min/max values by the Geometry stock to leave amount. It decouples having to make a stepup increment value change to get back to the same cut result if you end up going and changing the Floor Stock value by some amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chally72 said:

It definitely gets complex quickly if you have Stock to Leave values other than zero on your floor surfaces, too. If you're having to use specific increments/math on the stepups, the Adjust for Stock to Leave checkbox above the min/max depth field is there to automatically shift those min/max values by the Geometry stock to leave amount. It decouples having to make a stepup increment value change to get back to the same cut result if you end up going and changing the Floor Stock value by some amount.

would you mind to share file with doing math

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
On 10/5/2021 at 8:44 AM, Chally72 said:

Putting a Stepup value in that matches the Stepdown value will basically tell Optirough to machine all flats that occur within the Stepdown window. Stepup values that do not match the Stepups will net you terrace steps that may or may not actually clear away material on ledges and such to the exact amount of Stock On requested in the geometry page.

So you're saying, If I put, say, 0.5 into both stepup, and stepdown, it'll find, and machine any flats? And if there are no flats, it'll just continue to the next stepdown?

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

Wow, tried that on a part I'm working on.  Awesome tip.  Why didn't you tell me about that years ago??? 🤣😂

This is one of those "Hey did you know" things I have to throw in to every training lesson on Opti, because it's not explicitly spelled out in the interface that "doing X allows Y."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay back to the specific question that started this topic. Take the Total distance in your step shallow and divide it by the number of depths you would like. I take the 0.62875/2 and get 0.314375 which is 167% depth of cut. I would probably back it down to 3 steps 0.62875/3 and use .209583, but how you had the file originally was cutting the all the flats.

Speeds and feeds on the tool for me would be 20k rpms and 240 ipm to start. If the machine can hold accuracy at 480 ipm then I would kick it up to that feed rate. 8 minutes to cut that cavity of the mold verse 1hr and 26 minutes.

Dylan correct me if I am wrong, but if your step up is less than your step down then it will still detect the flats and cut them with no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chally72 said:

At the risk of oversimplifying, if you wanted to hit every flat and just the flats, and have no extraneous cuts, stepdown=stepup would be the way to approach it.

Please takes my comments with the utmost respect I am trying to communicate them. The problem is that process doesn't fit every situation and in this case I would not recommend such a method for cutting a mold cavity or boss. The lesser step up is a great process for cutting a complex shapes close to net and then coming back and finishing. If the Step up were equal to the Depth then another operation to semi finish the mold cavity or boss would be needed. I tried a couple different scenarios and got the flats cut on this example file. I use a 1" step down then why would I want a 1" step up? Defeats the purpose of the step ups to being with in my opinion. Imagine a cavity or boss with 30 deg walls that is 4" deep. What would be the difference along those walls with a 1" step up verses a .1" step up? Now imagine 60 deg walls? All ears to why that method is preferred or recommend, but just not seeing it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Please takes my comments with the utmost respect I am trying to communicate them. The problem is that process doesn't fit every situation and in this case I would not recommend such a method for cutting a mold cavity or boss. The lesser step up is a great process for cutting a complex shapes close to net and then coming back and finishing. If the Step up were equal to the Depth then another operation to semi finish the mold cavity or boss would be needed. I tried a couple different scenarios and got the flats cut on this example file. I use a 1" step down then why would I want a 1" step up? Defeats the purpose of the step ups to being with in my opinion. Imagine a cavity or boss with 30 deg walls that is 4" deep. What would be the difference along those walls with a 1" step up verses a .1" step up? Now imagine 60 deg walls? All ears to why that method is preferred or recommend, but just not seeing it.

 

Without getting into application specific examples, the problem you get into as a user, especially when you start adding in Floor and Wall Stock-to-leave values on the Geometries page in Opti, is extraneous passes when really you might have just wanted to do full stepdowns and then come back up and hit all flats. 

IE, here are results when I have requested 0.05 floor stock-on, on this pyramid step part with vertical walls.

 

Let's start first with a 0.5" stepdown, 0.0375" step up:

Before.thumb.jpg.566508b23317a21c81962cf3122be08b.jpg

 

Because of the way that the Stock-to-leave values are taken and the original model is "puffed", I get extraneous passes around each step that I technically didn't need with my part geometry. Now, I take the same path, and set my Step up to be equal to my step down, and I get this, which is closer to what I expected:

After.thumb.jpg.59efe41a570a3665b832453764c64db3.jpg

 

No extraneous passes, I hit all my flats, and I respect my floor stock-on values. 

 

Now, get into a mold cavity or something with a draft that requires step-up values, and you can't avoid Scenario #1, because yes, your bigger concern is getting the shape to near-net with your roughing, and setting step-up equal to step-down is no longer an option.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chally72 said:

Now, get into a mold cavity or something with a draft that requires step-up values, and you can't avoid Scenario #1, because yes, your bigger concern is getting the shape to near-net with your roughing, and setting step-up equal to step-down is no longer an option.

 

From what I can tell, while the matching stepdown/up method may not work the best for a "3D" cavity, with drafted or contoured walls, it's perfect for a pocket, with nothing but vertical walls and flat islands and pockets.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay we are on the same page then.

Thank you.

Just now, JB7280 said:

From what I can tell, while the matching stepdown/up method may not work the best for a "3D" cavity, with drafted or contoured walls, it's perfect for a pocket, with nothing but vertical walls and flat islands and pockets.  

Yes each part presents its own ways in which best to use the toolpath do to what we need.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/15/2022 at 10:38 AM, Chally72 said:

At the risk of oversimplifying, if you wanted to hit every flat and just the flats, and have no extraneous cuts, stepdown=stepup would be the way to approach it.

Dylan, after reading your post, I tried this on one part, and it worked great.  I tried it on another part, which has some XZ radius features, and it still wants to "staircase" those features.  Shouldn't it be ignoring those features? (Aside from every .350" stepdown, which is what I have it set at.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

Dylan, after reading your post, I tried this on one part, and it worked great.  I tried it on another part, which has some XZ radius features, and it still wants to "staircase" those features.  Shouldn't it be ignoring those features? (Aside from every .350" stepdown, which is what I have it set at.)

I'd want to take a look at the file before answering that one, so as to attempt to give correct info! Please send it over if possible, or perhaps email pictures if not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...