Wireframe ?

[Travis_Buchanan]

I feel stupid but in all the years I have used mcam I have never touched the wireframe toolpaths. What does one use them for and what are the benifits?

[BernieT]

Travis, these comments are my take on this.

 

I think the wireframe toolpaths are mainly for the people who learned MC back in the days of Ver 1 to 3. Toolpaths then were ALL wireframe. As surfacing came into use it was still helpful to go back to wireframe those times when surface toolpaths didn't seem to work just right.

 

The benefits today are less and less. However, there are still times when a simple wireframe model can be toolpathed quicker than making a surface model. For example, an edge radius - the same geo that you need to make a surface can be used to generate a toolpath. Also, the wireframe toolpaths calculate lightening fast compared to surface toolpaths. I have gone back to using wireframe toolpaths more often since I am not as comfortable with Flowline as I used to be.

 

Just my opinion................

[cadcam]

Also if you have a level one and no surface toolpath option you can use say the Ruled or the swetped2d to do surface paths from wire.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Ditto to what Jay said. I use them on occasion to stay "sharp". Also I do programming in some shops with Level 1, and if I need to do a Surface toolpath, I'll try every trick I can pull out of the bag to get it to work in a Level 1 situation. They do process TREMENDOUSLY faster.

 

JM2C

[Tom Szelag]

I use wireframe to define toolpaths as the norm rather than the exception, and I learned MasterCAM simultaneously on 6, 8, and 9. Lot of parts I get are more or less prismatic. If I get a dxf, not much choice but to just set the depths, select a few chains, and bam there are my toolpaths.

 

If I get a parasolid or what have you and have some trimmed surfaces and edge geometry, its a lot quicker to again just select some chains than to mess around with drive and check surfaces.

 

If there's some geometry that has a flowing, 3d surface, then obviously surfacing is the way to go

[betts]

+1 to Bernies comments. I learned to 3D using the wire frame toolpaths as that was all there was. I haven't used them in quite a while. They still work fine, but it seems to me that over the years as new technology arrives, the difficulty level and complexity of the part geometry has increased, (sometimes unnecessarily) that almost requires using all the current tech available.

 

Wireframe still is fast for simple things though, and when some surface prgs were less dependable they were a good way to "clean-up" where needed.

[Travis_Buchanan]

Thanks for the infro. I never did anything other than 2+1 programming untill about 3 years ago. I guess when I started surfacing I started out with the surface toolpaths, never looking at wireframe.

[Thad]

quote:

---

...its a lot quicker to again just select some chains than to mess around with drive and check surfaces.

---

+1

 

Quick and easy...what more could you ask for?

 

Thad

[Mike Mattera - TFM]

There are times they do come in handy. They are great to have if your running Mill level 1 or Mill level 2.

 

Mike Mattera

[Tom Szelag]

My first +1! Hooray!

[Storkman]

I'll still use the swept 3d once in awhile. But it's more like James said, "just to refresh". Never know some day you might have a tough one that nothing else will work on.

[Charlie Pierson]

Mill 1 and Lathe here.

Plus we do nothing but 2.5D so we live by wireframe even tho we design is solids.

[P_Scott]

Travis,

 

There is one major drawback with Wireframe toolpaths. They have no filtering. All the wireframe toolpaths produce just G1's. There also isn't a lot of options for entry or exit with the toolpath either. Another thing that always irks me with Wireframe is the fact that you can't always predict exactly where the offset of the tool will be. If it undercuts, you'll have to go back into the parameters and change the offset. Basically, there's less control of your toolpath with Wireframe than with say, a Surface toolpath using Solid data.

 

That's generally why I prefer to use solid data, or surfaces, for generating toolpaths. You can generate plain 2.5-D toolpath operations with solid data more easily and rapidly than with wireframe data. Solid data can also be used in Lathe. Ask your reseller to give you a demonstration on the capabilities of Solids in Mcam. You'll be glad you did. HTH

[Tom Szelag]

quote:

---

All the wireframe toolpaths produce just G1's.

---

What do you mean by this? Mine have plenty of arcs and complex moves (if I specify that kind of pocketing toolpath).

[Elmer Fudd]

I still use wireframe alot but the 2D sweeps don't always regen correctly. The cutter comp will switch sides of the geometry.My reseller says I am the only one who still uses them.

[P_Scott]

Tom Szelag,

 

quote:

---

What do you mean by this? Mine have plenty of arcs and complex moves (if I specify that kind of pocketing toolpath).

---

My apologies. The word 'wireframe" should've been capitalized because I was referencing Wireframe toolpaths, not toolpaths using wireframe geometry. Wireframe toolpaths are the predecessor to Surface toolpaths and include: Ruled, Revolution, 2D Swept, 3D Swept, Coons, and Loft. These were the toolpaths I was referrring to. Not the regular 2D toolpaths such as Pocket and Contour, which can use wireframe geometry or solid data and will produce lines and arcs. Hope this clarifies.