Tool Library Enhancement

[JB7280]

Maybe this has been discussed, but isn't there a way they could make the tool library stay "associative"  or linked?  similar to how components in solidworks stay linked to files.  Where you could change say, a stick-out length, and if you open an old program where that tool was used, it would just come up dirty, and needing a regen.  I struggle to keep tool libraries accurate for this reason.    

 

I won't pretend to be smart enough to know how to make something like that happen.  So I'll just wish for now.  

[AHarrison1]

To expand on this...

To be able to search for a tool and have relevant part files come up or where/what file the tool was previously used in

to copy parameters, etc.

 

[JB7280]

23 minutes ago, AHarrison1 said:

To expand on this...

To be able to search for a tool and have relevant part files come up or where/what file the tool was previously used in

to copy parameters, etc.

 

That would be great too!  

[cruzila]

I am curious how many libraries people are using and maintaining. With the versatility built in, there are many ways to skin the cat when it comes to keeping track of tools and operations. There would have to be a specific tag identifier for the tool to be tracked across parts or part families.

Or just within a file to see without having to do something extra like a setup sheet

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

3 hours ago, JB7280 said:

Maybe this has been discussed, but isn't there a way they could make the tool library stay "associative"  or linked?  similar to how components in solidworks stay linked to files.  Where you could change say, a stick-out length, and if you open an old program where that tool was used, it would just come up dirty, and needing a regen.  I struggle to keep tool libraries accurate for this reason.    

 

I won't pretend to be smart enough to know how to make something like that happen.  So I'll just wish for now.  

This was discussed several years ago.  There would be some advantages, but also major gotchas.  The way I use my tool library, I'll load the cutter from the library, and change the stickout and maybe the holder for a given part.  I expressly do NOT want that to alter all the other files in which I've used that cutter.  I also recalculate cutting parameters for most cuts, and very much do not want those changing without my say so.

[JB7280]

19 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek - Singularity said:

This was discussed several years ago.  There would be some advantages, but also major gotchas.  The way I use my tool library, I'll load the cutter from the library, and change the stickout and maybe the holder for a given part.  I expressly do NOT want that to alter all the other files in which I've used that cutter.  I also recalculate cutting parameters for most cuts, and very much do not want those changing without my say so.

I get that, seems like it could be addressed with switches/options.   We have a tool library that keeps every tool number permanently as that tool   For instance, if T467 is a 12mm 7 flute endmill, with 30mm stick-out, in a 165mm gage length SK16 holder, that's what T467 will always be.  I understand how it would be less advantageous for your situation though.  

[crazy^millman]

53 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

I get that, seems like it could be addressed with switches/options.   We have a tool library that keeps every tool number permanently as that tool   For instance, if T467 is a 12mm 7 flute endmill, with 30mm stick-out, in a 165mm gage length SK16 holder, that's what T467 will always be.  I understand how it would be less advantageous for your situation though.  

If you create a dedicated tool library with all the holders is the only way to go. No way to populate a change when reopening a file, but with a TDM system and CAV it would go a long way to give more control to the process. 

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

18 hours ago, JB7280 said:

I get that, seems like it could be addressed with switches/options.   We have a tool library that keeps every tool number permanently as that tool   For instance, if T467 is a 12mm 7 flute endmill, with 30mm stick-out, in a 165mm gage length SK16 holder, that's what T467 will always be.  I understand how it would be less advantageous for your situation though.  

If it will always be that, then what changes need propagating?  You're not going to use the same feeds and speeds for every part and situation, so you don't want those updating.  If they do, you'll be scratching your head wondering why a repeat part with a minor revision isn't working anymore.

[JParis]

2 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek - Singularity said:

If it will always be that, then what changes need propagating?  You're not going to use the same feeds and speeds for every part and situation, so you don't want those updating.  If they do, you'll be scratching your head wondering why a repeat part with a minor revision isn't working anymore.

Yup...I would not want my library updating as I change feeds, speeds & lengths and/or holders as I program....all of my tools are saved with a "group number", a Mazak Tool Life thing, and speeds and feeds that will work for that tool BUT as I am programming, I may adjust those and other settings in the toolpath based on exactly what it happening in that part program...again, updating back to my library would be disastrous on many fronts...

What I have done, in situations where I am repeating a similar feature again and again, I will export those tool paths into an OP's library. I can then import that into a file to cut that feature and save some time but already having it defined.

That may be an option for the "OP" to be able to maintain settings...

 

[JB7280]

On 6/4/2022 at 4:36 AM, Matthew Hajicek - Singularity said:

If it will always be that, then what changes need propagating?  You're not going to use the same feeds and speeds for every part and situation, so you don't want those updating.  If they do, you'll be scratching your head wondering why a repeat part with a minor revision isn't working anymore.

I understand that. I don't generally build speeds and feeds into my tool library, so that may be why it seems to be less of a problem from my POV.  

[Tim Johnson]

On 6/2/2022 at 11:15 AM, cruzila said:

I am curious how many libraries people are using and maintaining. With the versatility built in, there are many ways to skin the cat when it comes to keeping track of tools and operations. There would have to be a specific tag identifier for the tool to be tracked across parts or part families.

Or just within a file to see without having to do something extra like a setup sheet

On our database I have  lists for tooling,  setup sheets, program numbers and critical dimensions.

On Word I have "do not run", "to do", "material hardness and density", "macro variables", "macro systems and routers", "Mastercam levels",

  "calculations", "synced tooling", "part process improvements" and isolated notes per part number. Other than that I don't have much.