Advanced 5X toolpaths

[gcode]

How many people out there are using these toolpaths and what kind of results are you getting??

I'm using the advanced 5X swarf toolpath

and getting poor surface finishes no matter

what I set the tolerances and stepovers at.

One of the other programmers is using V9 5X swarf

with default tolerance and getting much better results on similar cuts.

We are both using the same 3rd party post that runs on Mastercam NCI.

Does anyone have any experience or guidance they

can give me regarding tolerance/stepover etc?

[crazy^millman]

fuuny doing a part and seeing some weird things as well.

 

Are you using the Multi pass? Are you that as a slice or passes function? Have you looked at the surface quality and what do you have them set at? I have a cut tolerance of .0005 distance of .025 with 8 cuts and Max Stepover of .025 and still not really happy with the floor. The walls look great but hope to get a better floor finish by using the step over in surface quality not working the way I hopw it would. The multi-surf looks great on the floor areas for the other area of this part so I guess I will use that in this area.

[gcode]

I'm just doing 5X Swarf. It doesn't matter

whether I use multipass or not and playing

with the steopover toloerances has not improved things much. If these walls were critical features, I'd be in trouble.

The V9 paths with the default .001 chord height and .100 max step are machining much cleaner

walls.

I guess I'll do my next part with X2 old style

5X swarf. That will tell me if its an X2 issue

or an advanced 5x toolpath issue.

 

I'm wondering if there are any Machine Definition

or Control Definition setting that affect mulitaxis NCI output. I've been using the default generic mill machine definition.

 

[ 03-11-2007, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: gcode ]

[TomHemphill]

using cuts along curve to port cyl. heads and thanks to Mike Rosa and Karlo getting good results... modified MPGen5x post... probably doesn't help you guys much though

Tom

[Bruce Caulley]

I was having similar problems every now and then. I usually relied on projecting curves and just using the old swarf or 5xcurve toolpaths. I only had good success with the new ones for actual mulit-surfacing.

 

Bruce

[RandleXX]

I had the same issues with Advanced Multiaxis Swarf. After going back to the regular 5-axis swarf tool path I found much cleaner code and a better finish.

Impeller Blade Swarf finishing works in some cases for quickly finishing a swarfed wall.

[Tinny]

We had a problem with 5-axis toolpaths. If you get flats ( like a fifty pence piece. I dunno what the American equivalent is.....) on surfaces the answer is to use point generators. I used 0.1 distance and 0.2 angle. Gives a huge toolpath but does the job.

[Post dept]

Hey guys,

 

We've been using the paths (swarf incl.) and have had success.

 

For swarfing, the key is to pick specify number of cuts, put in a margin so it doesn't calc right at the surface edge, then use the axial shift to drop the tool back down. Works mint!

 

Brett

[RandleXX]

Brett,

Your method works great for striaght tools, but what about a tapered endmill? I have had no luck using a 5deg.-.125 tip ballmill.

 

Thanks.

[Trevor Bailey]

Randle you have mail....see what you think.