Enhancement Request, Contour & Face Finish and Spring Passes

[Dave.L]

Hi All,

 

I know this has been discussed serveral times and I know I also participated.

 

We produce fairly small parts and due to that we use contour tool paths very often (instead of pocket paths).

 

With that said, I would love to see the following improvements to 2D contour paths:

 

1) The addition of spring passes.

2) The ability to set individual speeds and feeds for rough, finish, and spring passes.

3) The ability for the system to realize that the final depth pass and final multi-pass should be combined, or a check box to do so. (or am I missing something here)

 

As far as face tool paths, I would like to see the following:

 

1) The addition of air passes (like spring passes, this is handy when trying to make a surface very, very flat)

 

2) The ability to set individual speeds and feeds for rough, finish, and air passes.

 

It seems as this would be easy to do and so many users would benifit from it.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[Kyle Waters]

+1

 

We also do many small pockets/features. Would also be cool to utilize the climb and conventional directions inside this enhancement

[MIKE_B]

quote:

---

3) The ability for the system to realize that the final depth pass and final multi-pass should be combined, or a check box to do so.

---

Always wanted this!

[3R!< W3NG3R]

+1 to all of that.

[J Coulston]

quote:

---

3) The ability for the system to realize that the final depth pass and final multi-pass should be combined, or a check box to do so.

---

Absitivly

[BenK]

#3 is the big one for me too

[Cad-Camr]

Ive adapted my programming style to work within the limitations of the software. Rough with one tool and finish with another. Thats just a good machining practice. A spring pass can be generated thru multi pass by entering 1 ruff at 0 and 1 finish at 0. If you must ruff and finish with the same tool, you can create a copy of it and alter the speed and feed. If you truly expect the software to do everything you want the way you want, we as programmers would become very replacable. The manipulating and work arounds defines the skill level of our craft. Whew! I could really go for a brew.

 

[ 12-16-2009, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Cad-Camr ]

[BrianP.]

We had 2 +1's so I guess I am +3

 

This has been brought up before. Seems like it would be easy enough. Really adds to the operation manager size when you have to keep copying for finish passes. Or else adds time to manually edit the program after posting. I think that there are a lot of people doing a lot of 2D work that this would greatly benefit.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Ive adapted my programming style to work within the limitations of the software. Rough with one tool and finish with another. Thats just a good machining practice. A spring pass can be generated thru multi pass by entering 1 ruff at 0 and 1 finish at 0. If you must ruff and finish with the same tool, you can create a copy of it and alter the speed and feed.

---

I know how to work around it but it's a waste. In many cases it's not needed to use different tools to rough and finish. Currently if you want to rough, finish and have a spring pass it requires multiple operations (you already know this) and the worst issue with this is the tool retracts between those operations which increases cycle time.

 

What we are asking for here is not rocket science, just a well thought out set of parameters based on reality.

 

quote:

---

If you truly expect the software to do ecerything you want the way you want, we as programmers would become very replacable

---

Having better tools does not replace the programmer, it just provides more efficient ways to program. Was that not the whole point of CAM in the first place

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

This has been asked for a fair bit IIRC. Yes we can work around it, but it wastes time and often produces code that requires manual optimizing.

[Cad-Camr]

I knew I might strike a nerve with my post. I dont mean to dis anyone. This forum represents the best of the best in my opinion. I just have never ran software that didnt have to be manipulated.

[Mark Baker CNC Software]

Keep in mind that if the geometry is "closed", then we can use "pocket" and turn off the roughing. That should give you the spring passes and feedrate controls.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Keep in mind that if the geometry is "closed", then we can use "pocket" and turn off the roughing. That should give you the spring passes and feedrate controls.

---

 

I just tried a pocket on a contour, it did not work

 

Not really a substitute for what's been requested

[Mark Baker CNC Software]

quote:

---

I just tried a pocket on a contour, it did not work

---

Is the geometry closed? If it is, then it should work.

 

What was the error message?

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Is the geometry closed? If it is, then it should work.

 

What was the error message?

---

Geo is closed, no error, but a pocket cycle is created.

[Mark Baker CNC Software]

quote:

---

Geo is closed, no error, but a pocket cycle is created

---

You need to go into the "roughing" tab and un-check the "rough".

 

I meant to show you a screen shot but I'm having trouble with photobucket.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

You need to go into the "roughing" tab and un-check the "rough".

---

I did this. It does not work.

 

BTW, I am getting the impression that you are not understanding the request of this topic coz even if this works, it does not come close to solving all the issues mentioned.

 

But, thanks for replying.

[Dave.L]

Mark, to clarify, outside contour or profile, not inside.

 

Male Boss, not female.

 

Does that help?

[MIL-TFP-41]

quote:

---

1) The addition of spring passes.

2) The ability to set individual speeds and feeds for rough, finish, and spring passes.

3) The ability for the system to realize that the final depth pass and final multi-pass should be combined, or a check box to do so. (or am I missing something here)

---

1- I believe this can be done already....set number of roughing pass to whatever you would like, and then under finish passes set 2 @ zero. My personal thing to do is to do 2 @ .001....seems to give me a bit better tool life than just letting the tool rub.

 

2 & 3.....always wanted this also.

[Rob @ Target Machine]

quote:

---

Mark, to clarify, outside contour or profile, not inside.

---

Dave - If you want to use pocket finish for an outside profile, you need to make it an island inside a pocket, and un-check finish outside boundary.

 

Otherwise pocketing assumes an inside profile.

 

 

Here's a screen shot.

 

[ 12-16-2009, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Mastercam Guru ]

[Dave.L]

Guru,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I cannot see the benefit of this over a contour tool path based on the requested enhancements

[Rob @ Target Machine]

6 of one and half a dozen of the other, I guess.

 

I use pocketing this way because it has more options and spring cuts are readily available.

 

Contour has its workaround too, you can analyze contour, get your total length, paste it into overlap, and voila, spring pass.

[Cad-Camr]

Thanks G, Ive never seen it used on a outside profile. It gives you the ability to change rpm and feed on the finish pass. Cool