Program re processing

[TERRYH]

If I have a program completed and processed and have already ran it in verify and our machine simulator to verify it is good, if I go back and change something like the holder or a tool length why does the program need to re process if it is the same tool just a different length. We try and keep all tools and holders as short as possible so if I create a tool that is say 2" out of a shrinkfit holder and  process it and verify it and I see it can be 1.75" out of the holder and I want to try it the whole program re process, to me that makes no sense, it is a waste of time IMO if I change actual program parameters I can understand it but on something like that it's just a waste.  On a part like this that is 65x42x22 with lots of detail and will need the small corners picked to a 1/4" ball to change and wait on re processing takes forever.

[Jobnt]

33 minutes ago, TERRYH said:

If I have a program completed and processed and have already ran it in verify and our machine simulator to verify it is good, if I go back and change something like the holder or a tool length why does the program need to re process if it is the same tool just a different length. We try and keep all tools and holders as short as possible so if I create a tool that is say 2" out of a shrinkfit holder and  process it and verify it and I see it can be 1.75" out of the holder and I want to try it the whole program re process, to me that makes no sense, it is a waste of time IMO if I change actual program parameters I can understand it but on something like that it's just a waste.  On a part like this that is 65x42x22 with lots of detail and will need the small corners picked to a 1/4" ball to change and wait on re processing takes forever.

 

Possibly because of collision checking?

[Jake L]

Check out this thread - EMC Link

The conversation wasn't specifically regarding your issue, but Aaron has a longer comment in this thread explaining "checksums"

It kind of sounds like that may be applying here.

[Chally72]

Changing a tool stickout length, or any tool or holder geometry/heights, is changing a critical part of what a toolpath is calculated with. The toolpath must be recalculated after these changes. Your question might then be- "why does it have to recalculate if I'm increasing projection, as that would theoretically be additional clearance and no collision risk?" But this does not account for scenarios where the tool, holder, stock, part, or fixturing is placed in an undercut scenario, and thus we can't assume that increasing tool projection will always be safe.

[Tim Johnson]

You're programming this part and complaining about adjusting a tool length and having to re-verify it? How much $$$ would be lost if you didn't verify it and it crashed?

[TERRYH]

28 minutes ago, Tim Johnson said:

You're programming this part and complaining about adjusting a tool length and having to re-verify it? How much $$$ would be lost if you didn't verify it and it crashed?

No I am not complaining about having to to re verify it you missed what I was saying or I explained it poorly, I was complaining about having to re process a program if I changed a tool projection out of or shortening it, I double check this in verify and a machine simulator. 

 

[Jobnt]

13 minutes ago, TERRYH said:

No I am not complaining about having to to re verify it you missed what I was saying or I explained it poorly, I was complaining about having to re process a program if I changed a tool projection out of or shortening it, I double check this in verify and a machine simulator. 

 

You cannot do 1 without the other. If your op goes dirty you have to repost it. 

If you don't want to, just use the old posted program with the new tool length.

[TERRYH]

1 hour ago, Chally72 said:

Changing a tool stickout length, or any tool or holder geometry/heights, is changing a critical part of what a toolpath is calculated with. The toolpath must be recalculated after these changes. Your question might then be- "why does it have to recalculate if I'm increasing projection, as that would theoretically be additional clearance and no collision risk?" But this does not account for scenarios where the tool, holder, stock, part, or fixturing is placed in an undercut scenario, and thus we can't assume that increasing tool projection will always be safe.

I was not aware the program actually checked for collisions while processing, because a program will completely process and not say one thing that I have ever seen in 12+ years of using MC. I can process a program using a 1/8 ball for example and some ridiculous large holder or a holder not even meant for this tool and the program will process with no warnings.  I have only seen collision warnings about tool violation or holder violations when running verify or machine simulation. Does it matter when processing a program if the tool is 1" or 100" long I thought when processing a program it only took into account the tool dia./ radius and where you have your cut parameters set, and then the other adjustable variables. We do not have the collision checking box checked on the holder page. I'm sure it is embedded in the coding that if (any) parameters change it automatically reprocess but to me it just does not make sense and on a part like this where it does take some time to process I feel it is a waste of time on the job, and I could understand if I switched from a 1/2" to a 1/4" or something.  

[So not a Guru]

On 8/16/2023 at 1:27 PM, TERRYH said:

I was not aware the program actually checked for collisions while processing, because a program will completely process and not say one thing that I have ever seen in 12+ years of using MC. I can process a program using a 1/8 ball for example and some ridiculous large holder or a holder not even meant for this tool and the program will process with no warnings.  I have only seen collision warnings about tool violation or holder violations when running verify or machine simulation. Does it matter when processing a program if the tool is 1" or 100" long I thought when processing a program it only took into account the tool dia./ radius and where you have your cut parameters set, and then the other adjustable variables. We do not have the collision checking box checked on the holder page. I'm sure it is embedded in the coding that if (any) parameters change it automatically reprocess but to me it just does not make sense and on a part like this where it does take some time to process I feel it is a waste of time on the job, and I could understand if I switched from a 1/2" to a 1/4" or something.  

Just one example of what can cause the program to reprocess after a tool projection change.

[TERRYH]

On 8/18/2023 at 8:20 AM, So not a Guru said:

Just one example of what can cause the program to reprocess after a tool projection change.

I noticed this is a multi axis toolpath and did not see this in a regular toolpath.

[Leon82]

If it's trimming or tilting to avoid the holder it will need regen