How the blazes do I get MasterCAM to look like this?

[Tom Szelag]

Again, excuse my inexperience here. Only been doing this a couple weeks. Probably a dumb question.

 

http://www.formtecag.ch/mastercam/grafik/f...wege/pic006.jpg

 

Is that what the majority of you are used to seeing and working with in MasterCAM? A nice, easy to see, 3d model?

 

The shop I'm working in right now, its run by a machinist of 40+ years experience. He's a bit..set in his ways. Either imports a flat DXF and works from there, or manually puts in all the geometry. But its always just simple colored lines and arcs floating around in space. At first, I thought it was pretty crude, but I've gotten used to working like that. Still a bit confusing at times. Once in a blue moon he'll put in a simple drive or check surface.

 

So is this something new? Solids, or surfaces? I've seen the option to import dump solids from SolidWorks or Inventor, but I've never dinked around with it. Is that what I'm seeing in that screenshot?

 

What do you folks here typically work with? Simple line geometry made manually or from a DXF, or do you just import or create an actual solid and work from there?

[jeff]

I never used DXF,but I use solids and surfaces ALOT.

Not all the time,some prog's don't require it.

Do you have the solids option?

If not,it's relatively inexpensive and depending on the type of work you do,you could really benefit form it!

[Jack Mitchell]

Working from a DXF would only allow the base sketch as imported geometry.

From here he would need to transform and join the feature to establish a part thickness.

Next involved would be surfacing all geometry. – Huge overkill.

 

Really, all of this is unnecessary since the occurring machining does not require the dedication to make the picture pretty. As an owner I would only entertain this effort to impress a customer. Another method would to design it all in Mastercam, Inventor, or Solidworks and export as a Parasolid or an SAT.

 

Basically, I ain’t after pretty and would prefer a quality workpiece and an accurate record of information. Besides, I believe this might even be an example from the install disk.

 

 

Regards, Jack

[crazy^millman]

But if you had solids would take you all of about 2-3 minutes ot make that soild from the DXF. I have to agree with Jack though you got a DXF for a part like that then that is all you need slam bam thank you mam would be my apporach to something like that.

 

[BernieT]

quote:

---

Is that what the majority of you are used to seeing and working with in MasterCAM? A nice, easy to see, 3d model?

---

Yes, a shaded surface or solid model just like your sample is most common.

 

As others have said, for a simple part like this only the DXF or simple lines and arcs are necessary to generate toolpaths. Look thru the sample folders for more examples - be sure to shade them for best viewing.

 

[medaq]

I dont use dxf, I use .mc8

[Tom Dorgan from American Precision]

I never have the need to create solids. There are some types of parts that would work better maybe (ie. 5axis stuff) but I use simple flat geometry to program most of my work.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

+1000 to Tommy !

 

For 2.5 axes geometry I never create solid or surfaces ,I work from flat geometry ,it is a total waste of time and hard disk space

No need for that ,why to do things that you don`t need them ?

 

Best regards

[Camdude®]

i only draw the geometry needed to get the toolpath done.

for instance if i am goping to do 2D work then just draw the toolpath geometry instead of the whole part. if it is 5-axis work the i'll require a 3d model. ( solids preferred ). Some of the 5-axis toolpaths will require a surface generated from the solid for toolpath selection.

( note to MCAM developers, please make sure this is resolved in X ).

[crazy^millman]

No soilds for 2d work intresting question. If you are making the part in Mastercam or if you recieved a DXF or any other 2d wireframe then yes I agree 1000% you do not need to create surfaces or make a soilds a complete waste of time.

 

Now the intresting take on 2d work and having solids can make your life easier. If you were to recieve a soild of a part that most of us would consider 2d work you can use alot of pwerful tool in Mastercam to make the job go quicker and be able ot check yourself more effectively.

 

1) Solid Drill will create all the operations for all holes based on the paramters you set it up with. Is it perfect no but if you have a part with 85 different features can be a real time saver.

 

2) Making toolpaths for part can become a very easy task and if you created all of your part in Mastercma using solid and left the soild tree in there this can also work to save time. If you make a pocket in the part and you need ot resize the pocket the toolpath will be resized if you used the solid edge in as you drive chain for geometry. You can also keep from having to create alot of lines and things along that nature becuase you have all the solids edges you need so less making of things to do toolpaths.

 

3) With a solid you can create a STL of the part then use it to verfiy to so you can make sure you do not have a hole picked wrong made the wrong diameter or over chamfer an edge things like this.

 

4) As winnie/owl said it if a bigger file but in todays age of 200 gig hard drives for about $100 US to me fiels sizes need ot be less of a thought and we need to think more in the lines overall what makes my life easier. A part with 4 feature would perfer the DXF or Flat wirframe, but I have seen some of our 2d work have as much as 15o seperate details with true postions of .004 so if I got tools that I can use in verfiy using the solid method then if it takes me an extra 5-20 minutes ot use a solids though in my mind it would not then time well spent in the long run to insure you do not have scrapped part.

 

I am saying this incase I have sounded like a double talker. Use what is the best tool for your application givning you the most efficent, predictable, effective way to get the job done. It keeping your minds open to other possiblites you might find thing in those way that save you time, grief and give you the most desired result. Good part that were does as fast as you could with the least amount of errors and keep the ustomer happy as well as allow you as a person and a comapny yo turn a profit from doing them.

 

Just my 2 cents worth on this sunday morning.

[BernieT]

+1 Mister Millman !!!

 

And a happy Sunday morning too.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

Sometimes I prefer to move flat contours to different heights ,like doing toolpath pocket select all the pockets and set start height absolute and depth of milling incremental .

This change is justified ,it saves a lot of time ,other than really needed things I don`t build anything

 

Teh Lazy bear

[Keith Graydon]

Just do it like Winnie says.

 

I usually just manipulate the 2D file to get the results that i need for 2D or 2 1/2D work. I use full 3D if it suits my needs or is a requires feature of the workpiece.

 

I often run a MCam session in 2 1/2D for toolpathing and run a concurrent session with the full 3D model that I use for dimension verification. Like a 3D electronic blue print.

 

 

see below

 

2D layout

 

 

3D model

[TREV]

morning all,

99% of what i do is 3-d surfacing so i need more than just wireframe.but if all i was doing was drilling and contourind 2-d surfaces just get in the way,except as ron stated solid drill is a powerful feature to have.

trevor

 

hijack thread:

kieth whats with all the photos in your tool bar?

[CAM-mando]

My .02 on the subject.

 

On the simple 2 1/2 axis stuff, the 3D model is usually so easy to make if you already have 2d geometry that the time to model it is negligible. I could Model that part in your link in less than 5 minutes from a blue print and probably a minute or 2 if you gave me a 2d file to start with. I do my solid modeling outside of Mastercam, then import it, but I find that having the solid makes fixture design go much faster and even just backplotting is more helpful when you jump to a front view to watch for z depth errrors etc you can see the correct part Z levels.

 

I think a lot of the decision here depends on how fluent you become with 3D (solids / surfaces / wireframe) modeling. If you become very proficient, you will probably find yourself modeling many parts more completely in 3d and reaping benefits that you hadn't thought of.

[Toolfab]

I agree with Cam on this. We do EVERYTHING in solids. Simple tool holders

 

 

are in solids. It doesnt make it right but that is what we do. DXF? no. Solidworks 2005 here.

 

[Fig sign]

This is rather simple solid ,I can show you some 2d drawings that I didi that solid would be 100 mg if not more ,I once opened solid of 300 mg that was 3 pockets with 1000 islands of the same height and some other simple stuff ,I want to see how you will work ewith it fast ,when even a shading can be a problem

I never do solid when it is only waste of time

Just my 5 agorots

Best regards

[Toolfab]

Iskander, WTF are you making over there?!?!?!?!

 

 

lmfao

[Fig sign]

Ok, moved to O/T forum

[Shady]

Iskander.......uh........why is your post count a negative??? Is that proprietary to teh thousand acre wood ??????? ~~~~~Shady

[Avs_Fan]

quote:

---

What do you folks here typically work with? Simple line geometry made manually or from a DXF, or do you just import or create an actual solid and work from there?

---

Yes, Yes, Yes, & Yes.

It depends on how simple or complex the part is.

The main goal is getting good code for the machine as quick as possible.

Sometimes a few lines & arcs are all it takes.

Boulder huh?

How 'bout our Buffs! 42-3?

[GreggT]

Those pour buffs......... Almost as bad as the Donkeys losing......

 

Oh, ya. Always work in solids.

[Tom Szelag]

Well. Was more input than I thought I'd get! Thanks, all.

 

Yea, Buffs...well what can you expect against Oklahoma. If our offensive line had did some better blocking and gave Klatt some more time, we coulda had a lot more points on the board.

 

Still got the bowl ahead, and next year Oklahoma is losing like 16 starters. Klatt and our receivers and secondary will all have a lot more experience, and I think we'll do way better.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iskander.......uh........why is your post count a negative???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a penalty that anyone can get for a bad attitude . LOL

[Toolfab]

quote:

---

This is a penalty that anyone can get for a bad attitude

---

OR................three bad attitudes