X3 Mill suggestions and improvements

[Tim Johnson]

Not knowing your part but you can click the bottom of the drilled holes for your different depths using incremental zero.

[exjay]

cant you not set hole depth to incremental zero

and top of stock to absolute zero then apply to the point at center of bottom of each hole? then sort points by nearest point.

thats how I program different depth holes with one operation. seems to work fine.

[KalCam]

Or you can use muli-axis drill if you have option.

[neurosis]

My problem is that the holes are also on different levels. I'll remember this solution for future reference though when drilling holes that all have the same z start level.

 

This is also another function that worked well in the last system I used. I could, in the same operation, select all points that start on one z level and depth, then select any points on any other level and depth, or even had the ability to select the points and enter the depth for each individual point while selecting, then once done selecting, choose my sort option and then run. Simple as pie. One operation with several z start points and several different z depths. Im having some growing pains here I guess. What can I say. I guess if I would have never used a different system to start with I wouldnt know that any of this was possible. These are all things that would be nice additions to mastercam though.

 

Its funny how using mastercam now and having used another high end system prior, It would be nice if the other system had some of the functionality of mastercam, but some of the more simple tasks from the other system I really miss. They were things that were really time savers. I work in a shop that does allot of one off's and several of them a day so programming efficiency is a must. When I find myself battling to create efficient tool path in and efficient manner I get a little frustrated.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Im having some growing pains here

---

We know

 

[neurosis]

quote:

---

We know

 

[Wink]

---

If you had ever used cimatron you would see my point.

[Thee Rickster ™]

'E' that is...

[neurosis]

Actually, either. E is leaps ahead.

[Leif Johnson from MICO Inc]

I would like to be able to sort the work offsets in the WCS manager. Sometimes we create templates for machines and indexer angles to save program time. When a new work offset is created it is always put at the bottom.

[mcpgmr]

We don't have solids in X2 because we use Solid Works and they didn't feel the need to buy it. I think it's a raw deal that I can't move solids around. I don't want to change or build them. I just want to position vises, tables and hardware to where I want. I hope that this gets changed.

[PullTab]

When I create a solid, I usually blank or move the associated geometry to a hidden level.

therefore, when I Xform, Move, Mirror, Rotate, Etc. I loose the associated geometry’s position on the solid.

I would like to see a check box option on the Xform dialog box to “move associated geometry” even if it’s blanked or hidden.

[andrewgore]

mcpgmr and Jpage,

Do you guys not use the WCS stuff? You can setup your pickup points and all that, and never have to worry about re translating or moving or anything of solidsgeometries. You can also pickup different faces and whatnot even if you Don't have solids option in Mastercam. Eliminates the need for moving entities.

 

Andrew

[kunfuzed]

Andrew,

 

I think mcpgmr would like to be able to move around other solids, like vise models, into position. WCS doesn't help with that.

[kunfuzed]

Oooo! Just thought of another one!

 

How about being able to verify on multiple, disjointed solids?

[andrewgore]

I wonder if he could get his solidworks guys to model that into things? or have a base template....something along those lines. I know it is a far cry easier to move anything in Solidworks than it is in Mastercam. Possibly if he worked with his solidworks guys to just toss it in after the part is all modeled up. There is probably already a model for every vice up on 3d content central. Just a thought, but yeah, I understand that other end of things. I also know that not everyone likes to use the WCS stuff due to it not seeming "convenient" (not saying this is either of their case, just from what I've seen at the places I've been).

 

Andrew

[Guest]

I've done that in the past, modeled or imported everything into a SW assembly and then import into to MCAM.

 

The only problem with that is NOT everyone has a CAD package as an option.

[mcpgmr]

quote:

---

I wonder if he could get his solidworks guys to model that into things? or have a base template

---

That would help but then once it's in MC it's pretty much static unless you create surfaces from the solids (which is what I did today for my kurt vise model) and put things on different levels in different colors. I have Solid works 2006 on my machine and am slowly teaching myself so that I can be more independent of out designer. I just don't understand why MC locked out the ability to at least move solids. Even Catia will let you munipulate "dumb solids" and "solid mock ups". I really like X2 and am really getting comfortable with it but man it's a pain in the neck working with this restriction. I wish I could justify adding solids right now but I can't with multiple seats of Solidworks in the office.

[gcode]

quote:

---

I just don't understand why MC locked out the ability to at least move solids

---

You can move solids if you have the solids

license. I suspect that restriction was placed on

CNC Software by the developers of the solids module. UGS Parasolid

Frankly I'm surprised how much you can do with solids without having the solids module.

 

[ 02-15-2008, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: gcode ]

[mcpgmr]

quote:

---

Frankly I'm surprised how much you can do with solids without having the solids module.

---

That makes sense G. I can manage without the solids but it's just more preparation and organizing on my part. Maybe they will throw us a bone on X3? I do like the fact that I can verify the solid when I use WCS. That alone is worth allot to me. I'll stop bitching now.

[3R!< W3NG3R]

I have another one. Many of my pockets have rads at the bottom, but I rough them out with a flat cutter. Would be nice to have an option to leave material at the bottom for the rad instead of creating two ops. then I can go and clean it up with a smaller ball/bull nose.

[Richard Thomas - Mastercam UK]

Neurosis,

 

quote:

---

I am talking about zig zag at one depth

---

While Mcam isn't able to do exactly as you want at the moment, I've been playing and may have something useful for you. However this method may not be any quicker than creating extra construction geometry... you'll need to have a bit of a play yourself!

 

What you could do is create a Contour toolpath with the Ramp option active (the plunge depth would be the XY stepover that you are looking for) and then use the Transform Toolpath command to rotate the op 90 degrees in a plane perpendicular to your original op. My very simple test example consists of a line drawn along the X axis in Top and the the operation is rotated 90 deg. in the Right Side plane. The "Rotation Point" would be an End or Midpoint along the line you are using.

 

Don't set any tool compensation and set the Top of Stock and Depth etc. to Incremental values. This way, you'll find if you Xform your line up or down in the Z axis (to get the cut at the right Z height), you just need to re-select your rotation point to where the line has gone and you'll get the Xform'ed toolpath in the right place.

 

Right, the weekend beckons and I have to go Good luck!

 

P.S. Sorry to be so off topic thread-starter

[neurosis]

After all of my playing today..... I would like to see an option like 3d contour where a tool could profile a contour while staying off of a surface or plane (without having to take the extra steps to project it). Apparently available in 5x tool path already. Why not 3x? Being able to create a contour following a plane is very handy.

[neurosis]

quote:

---

While Mcam isn't able to do exactly as you want at the moment, I've been playing and may have something useful for you.

---

Ive seen even the most inexpensive of cam systems able to do this and also more powerfull ones. Im surprised that this hasnt been asked for enough to make it a concern. Its a huge time saver in programming and machining aluminum and would be usefull especially in this system where in my opinion already way too much time is spent having to create construction geometry and building usable chains to drive tool path in the first place.

[Colin Gilchrist]

Neurosis,

 

Takashi Sato of AI Solutions (a 3rd Party developer and reseller of Mastercam) has a utility that will allow you to re-order the depths of cut on contour toolpaths and pocket toolpaths to give you the "Zig-Zag Z" style motion or the zig-zag in the XY plane. It is really slick and even lets you keep all of Mastercam's toolpath regeneration capabilities.

 

I know it would be nice to have this functionality built into Mastercam by default. I've personally requested both of these enhancements myself and hopefully we will see them as additions in the future.

 

In the mean time, check out this Chook. I'm not sure what they charge for a license, but it is worth the money.

 

AI Solutions Chook

[kunfuzed]

How about the ability to set a finishing feedrate on the final pass in contours and face paths? I think you can do this with the toolpath editor, but then it locks it.