Comp in control verify

[kenfromlodi]

I havent done any comp in the control programming and I am at a new shop that programs this way.

The backplot and verify are giving my exaggerated tool movements but the code looks right.

Is this normal?

Is there something I can do to correct this?

 

thanks for any advice

 

Ken

[Guest]

quote:

---

Is there something I can do to correct this?

---

yup,

 

use computer or wear

 

:flamesuit on:

[Midwest]

 

 

These settings work for me.

 

Perpendicular

 

65%

 

 

Wear works nice also as Pinky stated above.....

 

 

[kenfromlodi]

Thanks guys,

 

I would refer to use wear but as I said I am at a new shop and they have been doing this forever and all the programs and operators are used to the control method. Too soon to make waves so I'm trying to conform for now.

 

why wont MC calculate and veify correctly.

seems like something it should be able to do.

I hate not being able to be sure at my computer before I send it out to the shop!

anyone else have any suggestions??

[3R!< W3NG3R]

In the verify config menu, did you try toggling'cutter comp in control' on and off?

[Guest]

quote:

---

why wont MC calculate and veify correctly.

---

Because by using control, ANYTHING could be placed in as a tool, it seems not to calculate based on this.

 

It is especially prevalent when grooving.

[rdshear]

I notice more issues in Lathe than Mill. We had used control comp here all the time for critical machining. Then, I started programming for lathe. Believe me, Lathe is a completely different beast. In lathe, I only program control in finish passes. Using it for anything else is a struggle.

 

I don't want to get into the control vs. wear battle. I see value in both. I guess I would be considered a "Moderate" when it comes to comp.

 

JM2C

 

Rick

[gcode]

quote:

---

I hate not being able to be sure at my computer before I send it out to the shop!

---

that is the best and final arguement for using wear comp. You have no control over what the operator is going to put on the offset page.

With wear comp and D=0 you know the toolpath

will run properly.

I wish I could offer some help, but I never use control comp and have no idea how to make it

backplot oand verify properly in Mastercam

[kenfromlodi]

checking the "comp in control" on the verify settings page did help. Thanks Eric.

 

It still will not do it in back plot tho.. guess Im gonna have to see about changing this if Im here for the long term....

 

Thanks guys..

[3R!< W3NG3R]

In the backplot options there is also a button for 'simulate cutter compensation'. Should do the same as in verify.

[kenfromlodi]

I tried it in the back plot but it didnt work.

 

 

edit...

 

ok I take it back it, tried it again and it did work. thanks again Eric...

 

still like wear better!!

[3R!< W3NG3R]

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I've been using "control" for comp on the wire so far, since that's what the previous wire guy did, but I find you have to be more careful. I think I'll go back to "wear", since I'm the only one who sets the thing up anyway.

[NeilJ]

Could someone please post the links where cuter compensation methods are debated. Thanks in advance.

[gcode]

use the search function at the top of the page..

suggested seach words

control comp

wear comp

[Colin Gilchrist]

Neil,

 

Do a search on the forum. This has been beat to death a number of times. Let me sum it up:

 

Full comp in the control is the "old school" way of doing cutter comp. The main disadvantage is that you must use a perpindicular line move that is greater than 50% of your radius value, or the control will error out.

 

Compensation in the "computer" means you get centerline toolpath code only, no cutter compensation.

 

"Wear" comp is the best of both worlds, you get centerline toolpath, with G41/G42 on the finish passes. So if you want to take away more material, you would enter a negative offset in the control register (-.002 for example). If you want to leave more material, you would enter a positive value.

 

Bottom line: Wear comp is better, period. Anyone who prefers control compensation just doesn't understand the difference, or isn't a programmer.

 

I can't tell you the number of people I've run across who insist that full cutter comp in the control is "better", but can not tell you why. The most typical excuse is that the code in the machine matches the "print" so the operator can tell what is going on better.

 

I personally think this is a total load of ,

 

An operator's job is to load stock, push the button, measure tools, and not try to second guess your program.

 

The only display they should need to be reading when setting up a job or running a new job for the first time is "Distance to go". Thats it.

[Kelly Burns]

quote:

---

Too soon to make waves

---

Its never to soon. This is one of the reasons companies higher people to begin with, to get out of the rut of "this is the way weve always done it". As long as you can back up what you say with good reasons and positive intentions its never to soon to rock the boat. Oh yeah, and its fun too.

 

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!