Tool Holder Definition

[Dave.L]

Mark,

 

Thank you for the info and attention to this.

 

-Dave

[Mike Whitten CAD/CAM Contractors]

Hello Mark,

 

I very glad that you are going to address the Tool Holder issue. This is the single most important thing that the software needs IMO. Many of us program Mulit-axis machines such as HMC's with large magazines and complex parts. Tool/Holder clearance is everything!

quote:

---

The bad news is that I think its going to get pushed back.

---

Please! leave this at the top of the list!

 

Mike

[Watcher]

Peon,

 

For those ones working in shops without the need of an engineering environment... Mastercam is pretty good... no doubt here... But in Pro/E I can do everything you can in Mastercam, plus create programs to drive Mill-Turn machines, simulate my toolpaths powerfully, see my tool holders, syncronize turrets, streamline the workflow using mapkeys, and a lot more.

The truth about Pro/NC and all HIGH-END stuff is that they NEED to be properly configured, and this the reason why most people don´t like it at a first glance.

Peon, I wonder how many time you spent in those six months customizing your environment... Mastercam smokes Pro/NC in 2D toolpaths, but that´s all...

When set a very complex tool assembly in 5 minutes and I´m able to generate automatically an assembly drawing of it, including the BOM and everything else, when I avoid a potential crash because I was able to detect a tool holder colision, when I get excelent surface finishes and tool life because I was able to use the shortest tools and holders without colisions, then I thank PTC and the lord for Pro/E.

In the end, the time I saved avoiding/workarounding all these inherent challenges of our profession due to the great tools in the software, makes me think that the lack of a very powerful 2D machining core is compensated everywhere else...

 

Don´t take me wrong, I used to be a Mastercam zealot and still being for some reasons, but in my daily reality, Pro/E smokes Mastercam.

 

I know that maybe some of you will consider me insame for stating this in a Mastercam forum, but this is how it works for me. I´m not trying to be an evangelist, not at all, just dispensing a different opinion... don´t think you that I do not have my problems with PTC software, of course I do: since January I have logged 7 bugs in the software... but even with their problems, Pro/E still being a very powerful solution for engineering/manufacturing/CAx

In brief, it brings me the so called "POWER TO THE USERS!!"

 

JM2C

 

Peace!

[peon]

There is one other advantage I have seen with Pro/e. Machining electrodes can be nearly automatic if the planes are set correctly, but the restmachining is completely defective, and from most of the local Pro/e users I have talked to, say it has never worked anyway. Many of the local toolshops that engineer with Pro/e, dumped the manufacturing and replaced it with Mastercam, Powermill and a couple with Cam-Tool. I admit that I'm certainly not an expert with Pro/e, but when I'm getting compliments from the gentlemen on the floor and the lead designer (who programmed all the steel in Pro/e before I started here) on the much more efficient toolpaths and fewer crashes and gouges, I think I proved my point at this shop. Please don't forget, a properly trained programmer can still bury toolhoders in cavities and around cores without smashing them and still get a highly efficient toolpath. I use the hsm toolpaths for MOST of my surfacing and almost ALWAYS check to the holder and have NEVER had a problem. Tool definition in MCX4 is still weak as most will agree. The big gripe with me in pro/e was creating toolpaths and boundaries for picking corners. I'm a programmer, not an engineer, so my drawing experience in Pro/e is limited. But when I watch our lead engineer make 30 mouse clicks compared to my 10 to create a simple boundary, I have to conclude that my way was faster and simpler. Not to mention, the restmilling in MCX4 works very well and I don't need to create as many boundaries that was needed with Pro/e. I have been introduced to the manufacturing side of UG. I was impressed! I still opt for the 2d toolpathing in MCX4, but the surfacing in UG was fast, efficient and looked nicer on the finished steel. It also comes with a very hefty price along with many more hours of training that will shock shop owners. I suppose if I was an experienced designer using Pro/e, I would certainly want the manufacturing package, but if I'm training a new programmer, there is no way that I would attempt to introduce them to Pro/e. Mastercam is much simpler and if we need to replace a programmer, I can find many more experienced programmers that know Mastercam.

[mig]

I believe that shank of the cutter must be able to built as well as holder .

Sometimes shank no just cylinder or just taper . Could be combination .

And also master cam , keep warning to you that he will stay away from some surfaces(there is problem or not ) , but never say(Shaw) which surfaces he not going to cut .

[peon]

Mig, you have that right! If I have an 1/16" ball with a 1/4" or 1/8" shank defined as a tool, the shank is NOT currently checked. That is my biggest gripe with the tool definition.

 

+1 to Mike!! Push the tool definition and tool holder upgrades to the top of the list!!!

[JLUSA]

Well I am glad that some people are happy with having the holder definitions for their 2D toolpaths. Me personally will probably not be using X4. I can't stand going from a tree style for my 2D paths to the old style for my bread and butter 3D toolpaths. To me it is actually very irritating. As usual it feels like the release was rushed out the door. It looks and feels totally unfinished as usual. I have been battling with management at my shop for several years to keep Mastercam. The other programmers have always complained about the tool and holder definitions. Now along with me they are also frustrated about the switching back and forth of the tree style old style dialogues. After this release I may have lost the battle and the war.

[Watcher]

Just an interesting remark... I almost missed it:

 

Although Pro/NC allows me to define 3D models/assemblies of any level of complexity as my tools (Turning/Milling/Probing), Mastercam tool management is far better than Pro/NC tool manager... And unfortunately this is not going to be changed in the next decade I guess, in fact, the tool library concept as you have in Mastercam does not exist in Pro/NC that way (It sucks!!! ), in order to reuse a tool set I have to export a .XML file and remember its name upon the importing!!!

Besides, I cannot search for a tool by its diameter, radius, angle and so on unless I build a custom Pro/Toolkit application to query a custom database or buying TDM or any other compatible tool management software...

 

So in brief, this is why I have told that I used to be a Mastercam zealot and still being for some reasons...

 

CNC, you have a good product that insists to be handicapped in some very important areas, and you are losing sales due to this... how many sales you have lost to Esprit or Partmaker? How many time did you invest in Lathe product lately?

I have a personal opinion: Once you decide to be the best in some field, you cannot stop doing this just because you are not making as much money as before: Yes, I´m talking about Lathe package for example - Even if it does not bring you as much money as Mill does, you should not drop it and live from the past glories...

 

Solid tool/holder models, full mill-turn capability are just one of the things that are no longer eye-candies, but essencial features to keep competitiveness... Thanks to things like China, manufacturing shops needs to move on rapidly, and CAD/CAM software is essential in this process... I really like and admire CNC history and product line, so that I would like to be able to stand for it when people say that it is not good... and trust me, whenever I can, I do it... but for some features (or the lack of them), it would be embarassing to defend it in front of a smart person...

[JLUSA]

Well I see that this topic is about dead so I want to try and keep it alive. I wish a few more would get on this topic and flame on the tool holder definition situation. I would just like CNC Software to know that I spend about 10X more time redrawing Holder.mcx for each individual tool. then backplotting it and verifying it than I do creating the actual toolpath. With the type of 3D horizontal programming that I do tool length and holder clearance is everything. Remember the old saying "Time is Money". Well I need something that is going to save me time. I personally believe that you should not be "pushing back" the tool and holder definition issue. I think it should be priority one!

[Henk]

Back to top,

 

For now this is a great help

[Mark Baker CNC Software]

quote:

---

Software to know that I spend about 10X more time redrawing Holder.mcx for each individual tool

---

Hmm.....if you're spending this much time on toolholders somethings not right. I believe I have the toolholder libraries in either a DXF or mc9. I'm not sure if the position of the holder is correct so you may need to move it but you won't have to redraw anything.

[JLUSA]

Mark,

For 2D and 3D toopaths I redraw holder.mcx and edit it to the shape of the holder that I will be using for each individual tool. I Then save it back into the tools library for future use. But each individual tool has to be backplotted and verified with the edited holder.mcx I cannot use the same holder definition for different diameter tools because the actual holders ARE different. I can't backplot and verify a program with the same tool holder. I have a library of holders I have drawn and I just rename an edited one to holder.mcx and then backplot and verify with it. If you still don,t understand what I am trying to say let me know. I have been using this software since 1994. So I have learned some workarounds. Hopefully maybe you can shed some light on something that I am missing.