Happy ThanksGiving

[SLuong]

Hello everyone,
    I just want to cheer you guys over the holiday and I have found some previous programmers of which turned off the CLEARANCE and RETRACT planes.  I got so mad about it and I have written a warning because it is very DANGEROUS for HORIZONTAL and 5 AXIS...

 

=======================

 

[crazy^millman]

I turn those off all the time and use Ref points to get in and out if needed, but sometimes I have 10 or 20 toolpaths I want to keep down in an area and by having them off it keeps the machine where  want it how I want it and done. Other times the 1st toolpath will have the approach Ref Point and the last toolpath in the group will have the Retract ref Point. No crashes and efficient toolpaths . That is where correct programming and verification process come into play not some warning that is not checking everything across the process like this does which again to each their own seems like a big waste of time. If I ever seen this when posting code I would trash that post and go back to a generic and make sure management knew how much time was being wasted when I was trying to post code because someone with a foul mouth thought it was funny to add this to a post. I am the crazy person in the room most times so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Here is one for linking 2 5 Axis operation from one place of the part to the other on a Mill/Turn. Your post would give me this warning for no good reason.

 

[SLuong]

On 12/2/2021 at 11:14 AM, crazy^millman said:

I turn those off all the time and use Ref points to get in and out if needed, but sometimes I have 10 or 20 toolpaths I want to keep down in an area and by having them off it keeps the machine where  want it how I want it and done. Other times the 1st toolpath will have the approach Ref Point and the last toolpath in the group will have the Retract ref Point. No crashes and efficient toolpaths . That is where correct programming and verification process come into play not some warning that is not checking everything across the process like this does which again to each their own seems like a big waste of time. If I ever seen this when posting code I would trash that post and go back to a generic and make sure management knew how much time was being wasted when I was trying to post code because someone with a foul mouth thought it was funny to add this to a post. I am the crazy person in the room most times so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Here is one for linking 2 5 Axis operation from one place of the part to the other on a Mill/Turn. Your post would give me this warning for no good reason.

 

 

This is what I worry about when people cannot have CLEARANCE ON, RETRACT ON .  Setup men need some kind of precoding as "Z" value for them to SINGLE BLOCK and double check their distance and program distance.  I've seen people crash 5-Axis the spindle (I am not saying you). 

 

N1(TOOLPATH NOTE)
G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90
G91 G28 Z0.
T1 M6(TOOL NAME)
G0 G90 G54 X0 Y0 S1500 M3
G43 H1 Z5.(CLEARANCE)
Z1.(AWAY FROM PART)
Z.125(RETRACT)
G1 Z-2.5 F5. (CUTTING INTO PARTS)

G2 X Y.... (CUTTING....)
G3 XY.....
G0 G90 Z.125(RETRACT)
Z1.(AWAY FROM PART)
Z5.(CLEARANCE)
(NEXT POCKET WITH SAME TOOL)

 

[crazy^millman]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:24 AM, SLuong said:

 

 

This is what I worry about when people cannot have CLEARANCE ON, RETRACT ON .  Setup men need some kind of precoding as "Z" value for them to SINGLE BLOCK and double check their distance and program distance.  I've seen people crash 5-Axis the spindle (I am not saying you). 

 

N1(TOOLPATH NOTE)
G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90
G91 G28 Z0.
T1 M6(TOOL NAME)
G0 G90 G54 X0 Y0 S1500 M3
G43 H1 Z5.(CLEARANCE)
Z1.(AWAY FROM PART)
Z.125(RETRACT)
Z-2.5 (CUTTING INTO PARTS)

Where again a verification process checking the code and looking at everything from a complete Digital Twin standpoint would prevent those situations. Pay me now or pay me later with not having the correct tools in place. Band aids like what you do not fix the problem. The problem is not having the correct process in place to check for these type of possible collisions before they every get to the machine. 

FYI I have crashed my share of tools and spindles granted not many, but had things even the best CAV missed and we only found them when incidents happened at the machines to find those issues. No method is 100% unless it is has been run through and everything looked for and checked. I am not perfect, but you put up vulgar language that is not needed to have someone make program the way you want them. Want to check for things then do so, but no need to be a complete a-hole about it with that kind of language when you're not checking everything with that check. Not a stupid program it is a stupid owner cheaping out and then wondering why there are issues with the process. Owner wants to do that they can, but you either spend time at the machine to make sure everything is good or you spend it at the computer and getting it 99.99% there before it ever goes to the machine.

Here is what I am comfortable sending to a $750k Machine on a $40k part. Yes that is only .127mm or .005" clearance between the holder and the tool to the part. The gauge length on that tool is 182mm or 7.165" and no needed checked and balances from a post because I bought my own seat of Vericut and NCSIMUL to check for these things. Yes crazy people like me do these crazy things.

 

[SLuong]

20 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Where again a verification process checking the code and looking at everything from a complete Digital Twin standpoint would prevent those situations. Pay me now or pay me later with not having the correct tools in place. Band aids like what you do not fix the problem. The problem is not having the correct process in place to check for these type of possible collisions before they every get to the machine. 

FYI I have crashed my share of tools and spindles granted not many, but had things even the best CAV missed and we only found them when incidents happened at the machines to find those issues. No method is 100% unless it is has been run through and everything looked for and checked. I am not perfect, but you put up vulgar language that is not needed to have someone make program the way you want them. Want to check for things then do so, but no need to be a complete a-hole about it with that kind of language when you're not checking everything with that check. Not a stupid program it is a stupid owner cheaping out and then wondering why there are issues with the process. Owner wants to do that they can, but you either spend time at the machine to make sure everything is good or you spend it at the computer and getting it 99.99% there before it ever goes to the machine.

Here is what I am comfortable sending to a $750k Machine on a $40k part. Yes that is only .127mm or .005" clearance between the holder and the tool to the part. The gauge length on that tool is 182mm or 7.165" and no needed checked and balances from a post because I bought my own seat of Vericut and NCSIMUL to check for these things. Yes crazy people like me do these crazy things.

I agree with you at certain point.  Owners don't pay extra for the MACHINE SIMULATION.  Even some mom and pop shops when they see programmer to do the regular VERIFY he started to get angry about.  He only likes back plot as saving time.  

As the result, I saw he crashed the machine and he angry on the part and screaming on the floor.  That was the MOLDING shop in REDWOOD CITY, California as a VERTICAL with FULL 4A-XIS part.

That is why I try to catch as much as I can when I take someone's program because some, they don't even try to do the VERIFY due to the owner's demand.

 

 

Tough but it is always a way for me a way check throughout the post.

[crazy^millman]

11 minutes ago, SLuong said:

I agree with you at certain point.  Owners don't pay extra for the MACHINE SIMULATION.  Even some mom and pop shops when they see programmer to do the regular VERIFY he started to get angry about.  He only likes back plot as saving time.  

As the result, I saw he crashed the machine and he angry on the part and screaming on the floor.  That was the MOLDING shop in REDWOOD CITY, California as a VERTICAL with FULL 4A-XIS part.

That is why I try to catch as much as I can when I take someone's program because some, they don't even try to do the VERIFY due to the owner's demand.

 

 

Tough but it is always a way for me a way check throughout the post.

Then anyone ignorant enough to demand this gets every problem and issue that happens running their shops like that.

Either way that doesn't give you a pass on the language you have for that check. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[htm01]

think that would get you fired at most shops

at least it would be a written warning

[crazy^millman]

3 hours ago, htm01 said:

think that would get you fired at most shops

at least it would be a written warning

Yes any company with any kind of a HR department.