Verify mismatches

[dgriffiths]

When running a program through verify, even at the highest quality setting I am seeing mismatch between cutting operations. Just wondering if this is common. I can not find any settings that are incorrect. The mismatch is most apperent where a flat surface finished with an endmill meets a radiused edge finished with a smaller ballmill.

[Yogesh K. Raman]

can u share the file?

[crazy^millman]

Well are you using boundaries for this toolpath?

 

Are you using something in the advanced setting to limit or make something over travel?

 

Is the flat tool trying to go into an area smaller than it will fit?

 

Have you looked at the tpfcg Chook and see what is set on some of the settings for flat surface recongnition is some surface toolpaths?

 

Do you have depth setting checked in some of the surface toolpaths that will limit how far some of the endmills will go?

 

Do you have an amount of leave stock in check surfaces?

 

Do you have a vaule for staying away from in boundaries?

 

Can be alot but without seeing a file alot of guessing and alot of things it could be wrong.

 

HTH

[cadist]

To add in the list, while creating stl file what's the tolerance and is it more than your file comparision tolerance.

[foolsh]

use accurate zoom to get a sharper image

[kkominiarek]

could also be poor graphics display......

[PE @ IHS]

I have also had this happen, and cannot explain it. Usually it happens when I have 2 different 2D contour operations cutting the same profile with different tools. Even though the same geometry is being used and there is no stock to leave, I get an occasional "step" in verify on what should be a vertical wall. The g-code is fine.

[dgriffiths]

I just finished running this part today and everything looks good so I guess I will just chalk this one up to a display issue. Anyway thank all of you for the input.

[Leon-ZA]

I once had an incremential retract (surface - rough - pocket) take a nice 9mm chunk from my part and that didn't even show up in the verify for some reason. In the verify, even doing it step by step, the tool retracts, disappears, and poof reappears at the entry point. But my part was somewhere inbetween those "beam me up Scotty" positions. Lucky I had my rapid set to 5%.

[kinglouie V]

I've had this problem when using a slitting saw to cut a slot in a part. It will appear that the saw is slotting too deep. When I post and check the numbers they are fine. Strange but that's the only time I see a mismatch in verify. I saw it in V9 and now X. Ain't got a clue why it's happening. I just check my numbers in the program and go.

[kinglouie V]

Here's an example of what I'm seeing.....

 

 

[kinglouie V]

*BUMP*

[kinglouie V]

I guess the answer is there is no answer?

[Bruce Caulley]

Lou, t-slotters have done that in verify for the last couple of ears, that I know of.

[Thad]

quote:

---

I once had an incremential retract (surface - rough - pocket) take a nice 9mm chunk from my part and that didn't even show up in the verify for some reason.

---

To my understanding, MC will calculate incremental clearance heights based on the surfaces selected as drive and check. The other thing that is taken into consideration (or not taken into consideration, depending on how you look at it) is if the machine does straight line rapids, or dog-leg rapids.

 

If you select an incremental retract, MC will find the highest point between it's current location and the (straight line) next point and retract incrementally to clear it. The problem now arises if the machine doesn't do straight rapids. MC also doesn't account for surfaces that are not selected as drive or check. So it you you thought you were saving some (processing) time by not selecting some surfaces, it comes back to bite you. Also, MC's verify can't keep up with which controls/machines do which type of rapid move. Therefore, the safe thing to do it always use absolute retracts. The short amount of time that would be saved by using incremental rapids is easily eaten up by a single broken tool or buying a replacement steel.

 

Thad