MR2 Planes Problems

[Randy Morton @ Clem Industrial]

Does anybody else have problems with MR2 creating extra planes when doing milling setup? I had this happen a few times now. I am just doing like normal, selecting stuff from my solid model (drawn in SW2006), holes, bores, facing...blah blah blah. The verify looks funny so I check the planes and it has the normals, and 7, 8, and 9 planes (those are their actual names...)

 

They are part of my toolpaths as well. Such as drilling a 5/16" hole, I have WCS = TOP, T/P = TOP, Comp/Con Plane = 9

 

What's the deal?

[Guest]

Are you sure you are saving them AND making them associative?

 

I've seen some "things" in MR2 that I have not been able to put my finger on.

 

Bring an MR1 file in with planes that were good when the job ran, now I bring it into MR2 and the associativity to the planes seems to be gone,. I get the numbers like you do but all still show they are on the named planes. I end up having to redo them all.

 

Or go into an OP highlight all the OPS and active the supposed WCS for those OPS and the one shown is NOT the one that is named and used. Open up an OP and the real planes go active, you can tell by the origin lins, they jump into the correct location, close the op and the origin goes back to where it doesn't belong.

 

 

It's happened a few times and I've b een in a rush, so I fixed it and moved on.

 

 

Next time I open one it's going off to QC.

[thoskins]

I've had one major issue with tooling and construction planes being changes around or not associative. Unluckily for me I did not catch it before it got to the part. What griped me was that this was a file that I had used time and time again so I was confident that it was okay. I backplotted, everything looked OK so I ran it. The problem was is the wcs was right but the tooling and construction plane was not. It took the values from the wcs origin and applied them to the T/C planes as well. So everything was offset incremetally by the values in the wcs. What I want to know is how come when I backplotted it looked OK and not out of location?

This cost me big time. Partialy because I "ASSUMED" that it was right and because I thought I was right.

Oh well live and learn. I'll know better next time.

[edmBosto]

Thoskins,

That could make your head spin what you discribed. My question is would it have shown this if you verified the program?

Sorry to hear that bit you.

[thoskins]

edmBosto

The problem I have had with verify is that my video card is only as good as my employer thinks it needs to be. Hence verify takes a long time to process. I'm not trying to blame mastercam for the mistake...I should have caught it. Ultimately it is my responsibility to make sure its right at the spindle not just on the computer screen. Sometimes a person gets lulled into a sense of saftey because of what cam software does for them. We forget the basics and tend to rely on the computer to do it all for us.

[Guest]

Creating a new T plane for rotation, yet no matter what I do I get (Not Saved) after the name.

 

I've used the solid face, I've used geometry, all still the same.

 

What's that all about?

[New Job]

I've been burned by MCAM9 enought that I resorted to a 3rd party software to verify my toolpaths before I run them. Backplotting and verify both would show good and then Gouge time!

[New Job]

... enough ...