verification problem

[melliott6]

I am trying to use verify to see what my toolpath looks like. I am doing a surface/finish/flowline tp to 3-d an id chamfer. I am using a 1" em. with a .06" rad. When I verify the model looks like stairsteps instead of scallops. I noticed the em. had square corners so I double checked my parameters and they were correct. When I simply backplotted the toolpath the tool has the correct radius. All my other tools looked correct in verification. Can someone tell me if I am missing something.

 

Thanks,

Mike

MCX3 MU1

[strabe]

quote:

---

so I double checked my parameters and they were correct.

---

So you're saying that your tool is defined as a "Bull" endmill with .06" corner rad? If so, I wonder if it is your display settings or video card.

[melliott6]

I tried setting my tolerance to .0001 and it made no difference in the graphics.

 

I just tried creating a custom tool on a level by itself that is identical to my tool that isn't displaying properly and it looked much better except there was a step at the top of the chamfer where the .060" radius should have blended with the id.

 

I also just got a new video card installed. It's a Nvidia Quadro FX 1700. I don't know much about these cards but my administrator says should be adequate.

 

Very confusing.

[Superman]

On your verify confogure page, are

Use TrueSolid and As defined ticked

 

The sliding bar ( speed/quality) on the verify dialog also affects the display

[Justin Beebe at Folsom Tool]

Your quadro card should be fine. Set your STL and tool tolerance to .001. Then set your speed/quality bar to maximize quality. That should do the trick.

 

Also do not use turbo mode.

[melliott6]

I had my tolerances set to .001 and my speed/quality bar was set to maximize quality. I was not running in turbo mode... and sorry but it didn't do the trick :-(

 

Here is a link to show you what I am talking about. The part file shows a graphic of my verification result. The closeup shows the area I am talking about.

 

http://members.cox.net/melliott6/index.html

[melliott6]

I am assuming that the part will machine correctly since everything looks ok when I run backplot. So I will move on and give up trying to figure out what is going on here and chalk it up to ANOTHER MX3 bug.

[cobra95kev]

Hey melliot6,

I just tried what you did and the 1st picture looks about like yours but the closeup is certainly different, something is not right. I am not sure why your tool is not displaying properly.

 

Some have said around here to go to the solidworks website and download the latest recommended drivers for solidworks for your particular card and then use the solidworks profile when configuring it. I have heard good things about that card on the forum so I am sure it is just a matter of getting it configured properly.

 

Good Luck,

[melliott6]

Another part of the mystery. If I just run the 1.00" tool in verification it works fine. See picture no. 3 at this link. http://members.cox.net/melliott6/index.html

I hope someone can figure out what's going on here.

[cobra95kev]

Yeah that looks like mine,

Check your other toolpaths, maybe your rougher is overcutting? Have you compared your cut part to the original using the STL compare function?

[melliott6]

Yes. Everything looks fine except the square corners in the 3-d toolpath. I have my network administrator checking out the solidworks website when he gets in. Maybe that will be the answer.

 

I don't know about you but I have a long list of things that are buggy. I have been using mastercam for 15 years and haven't seen the problems that I have with MCX. My support syseem is not good. All I ever get is "send me a zip2go" and thats usually the end of it.

 

Thanks for the help.

[gcode]

If you are using a custom tool..

draw it to size

use "undefined" as tool type

define the correct OD on the parameters page

and

VERY IMPORTANT!!!

correctly define the tool radius

on the parameters page

[melliott6]

Thanks gcode, but I already did all that exactly as you prescribed. See the 4th picture in my link.

 

http://members.cox.net/melliott6/index.html

 

The "undefined" tool leaves a step shown in the picture. If i run the tool in backplot and look at it from the side the radius matches up with the part perfectly so I know it's going to the right location. Just don't know why verification leaves a step. Really frustrating.

[Mike-T]

Make sure that in the tool properties page that to tool file name is pointing to a bull and not a flat. In verify config, make sure the tool profile is set to "as defined"

[melliott6]

It's defined as a bull and the tool profile is set to "as defined" but still have the same problem.

 

Thanks though.

[gcode]

if you can email me the file I'll check it out this evening... or put it on the FTP.. someone on this forum can figure it out..

 

edit...

another idea.. is your tip comp set to "center"

X3 started doing that by default and has caused

all kinds of trouble for people..

[melliott6]

I haven't used the ftp. How do I put it there?

[GMM]

I was trying to figure this out a couple of months ago.

I ran verify and it was not correct. Then even tho my operations were not dirty, I regenned everything and went directly to verify and it looked perfect.

[strabe]

I just noticed a similar problem with my system. I'm cutting a .25" rad 90°. Using a 3/4" X .03r bull endmill that I defined, Using the solid as my stock, Verify shows a step on the horizontal face but the part runs fine.

 

WTF????

[GMM]

http://tinyurl.com/ac7k89

 

I dont know if these kind of links work here but this is a link to the posts from a couple months ago.

[melliott6]

WOW! I followed the link on the previous post and changed my tool profile to "auto" from "as defined" to see what it would do. The part verified perfectly.

 

So, I have heard to use "as defined" and "auto". In the future am i going to have to use one and if it doesn't work try the other? Can anyone tell me why "as defined" doesn't work for this one tool?

 

Thanks to everyone for all the help.

[GMM]

I dont think that you have to use both.

Maybee I messed up, but what I thought I said in the last post of the link I sent, is use "as defined" and just regen everything (if it is dirty or not) before running verify. Check it out, and see if it verify's correctly on your part. Use "as defined" then regen everything, then run verify.

[strabe]

Didn't work for me.