WCS Discussion

[Roger Peterson]

to use dynamic to be normal to a surface or solid face click on the arrowhead (Z axis), then as you hover over different faces the selected axis will be normal to that surface. You will need to move the origin, and you more than likely will need to orientate the x axis but it works well.

 

 

Mastercam has a LOT of tools to make everyones life easy, if you have a problem the answer is there, you (and I) just may not know the answer.

 

 

HTH

[Guest]

quote:

---

JParis, you do know that Dynamic Xform will easily make any axis normal to whatever surface you wish, right?

---

Yeah, the functionality just isn't complete, something feels missing and I've yet to put my finger on it.

 

I gave up the 2 line method which served my well for several years with the advent of the Dynamic ability.

 

However one thing that still eludes me is the solid edge selection of the Dynamic. If you have a corner fine but if you have an intersection point you can't seem to use the intersection autosnap so in those cases line work best

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

Roger, you and I are doing things exactly the same, other than line color and thickness. One of these days maybe I will find the time to make a video.

 

For any one that is not aware of the power of Dynamic Xform and Dynamic planes, watch the first two chapters of this video here

 

EDIT:

JP, check the options in Dynamic Xform. I select solid edge intersections all the time with dynamic, so one of your options must be off.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

If you have a corner fine but if you have an intersection point you can't seem to use the intersection autosnap

---

I played with Dynamic WCS today and yes I notice this tool. I also can not seem to figure how to get the intersection of 3 planes

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

In contrast, with Solidworks, you'd need to create a sketch and a point so you could create a reference coordinate system.

---

A little O/T but I wanted to respond to Joe on this:

 

Joe, not sure what version you are using - I'm on 2010 SP2.1 and this is not entirely true. Only in some cases do you need to add a point, not in all. If the part has vertices, I can use them. This function works like most of Solidworks, AWESOME.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

I select solid edge intersections all the time with dynamic, so one of your options must be off.

---

True intersections or projected? I think he means projected.

[crazy^millman]

quote:

---

Rick, I would NEVER want any geo that is not part of the current part in the file, IMO, your asking for trouble if someone else works with the file.

---

If you have labeled everything and separated everything on Levels why would this be a problem? I am just trying to understand the logic here is all. I have done it this was for close to 20 years. If you things labeled what would it matter if you had something on 200 levels if you drew it at one time you needed it for something to just erase it out might just cost you more time if you just left it in and it were labeled correctly. Now I have gone behind what I call lazy people who do everything on one level and IMHO this practice is so unprofessional. I will ask this are all of your Micrometers, Verniers, Wrenches, and other tools just thrown in one draw or do they have their own place in your toolbox. Do you have a bookshelf to put books or do you just throw everything in a garbage can and then go digging them out when you need them. This is the same difference to me. You take the extra 10 seconds to label things can save you hours if not days in the long run.

 

What is really the big deal if you get extra WCS? Does it get the job done? Does it give you the functionality you need? I also understand what you were saying and I ask what does it really matter? Sit down and make some 120 or 150 hour programs with pencil and paper and you are very thankful you got anything. Saying it is broken because you have a preference is just off. How about saying it is not to your liking, but broken is just off.

[Dave.L]

Ron,

 

In my example, I was doing a "save as" from one part to another and THATS why I would not want the geo in the other part file on any level, it has no purpose.

 

And as for WCS, I said all along that it's not to my liking so when did I say it's broke?

 

You seem to often mis-understand my statements.

[Roger Peterson]

create associative plane via dynamic plane has been submitted and logged. This would be a nice addition, and make it a little more obvious on how to create an associative plane. That being said, how I currently do this takes about 15 seconds more and is available now by using dynamic xform.

 

 

HTH

[crazy^millman]

Sorry Dave I associate lame with broke. In the way it was used in that sentence I took it to be not working in the method at which is suppose to work. A lame duck session is a term used in congress when they want to stall something or change something that is broke in that persons mind. In the context it was used in the other thread I took it that way sorry I misunderstood your meaning to be that of it is lame to mean to your linking and not lame in the meaning of broke and had to be fixed to make the system useful for others. I also was going by the context of you telling us Mastercam users saying if we do not make CNC software know there is a low hanging fruit on the tree then they will never fix it. Again I equate fixing something with something being broke, thus me heading down the path of taking what you are saying to mean broke. Making things better is always a good thing, but implying things that others need to share your ideas in saying we all needed to make CNC software aware of what you thought would then in my mind we agree with you that the current method is so bad that it is unusable. I was pointing out a different mind set and thought as to that conclusion and sorry if in that thinking takes what you say in a way not meant by you. I was taking comments made and then based my responses from those different comments made by you.

 

As for what I responded in the last one I was looking to your 5th response and not associating you meaning what you were meaning since it was not stated to mean what you wanted it to mean back to a response 5 times before. Limited brain capacity om my part there.

 

People are different and people take things in different ways. If what I have said has offended you in any way I apologize for that. It is not my intention I am just trying to understand what is being said in the context of what you are saying and make sure I respond back as to make my point of disagreement a fair and understandable as possible.

[Dave.L]

Ron,

 

As I said many times, text communication can be very dangerous since it's very easy to misunderstand people.

 

I probably should have said "improved" instead of "fixed" but to be honest I am not watching my wording that carefully.

 

Thanks for the apology but it was not necessary, I was not offended. I appreciate the playing ground here and I don't take too much too personally.

 

The members here (you included) are all good people. I don’t judge people based on if they agree with me or not as long as they are respectful to my views and I hope to always be respectful of theirs even if I don’t agree.

 

[Thee Rickster ™]

quote:

---

Rick, I would NEVER want any geo that is not part of the current part in the file, IMO, your asking for trouble if someone else works with the file.

---

We hire experienced ppl and if they are not consistent

their gone. I oversee everything here

and if some thing goes wrong because they used

misc geometry I'll fire them for being stupid.

 

I import layer.csv sheets i've made up for every mold

type scenerio

 

The geomtry for each component is in each group

don,t care if you use all layers or not

 

1 A COR SETUP

2 A COR SURF

3 A COR WIRE

4 A COR BND

5 A COR CHECK

6 X

8 7 A COR INS 1 SETUP

9 A COR INS 1 SURF

10 A COR INS 1 WIRE

11 A COR INS 1 BND

12 A COR INS 1 CHECK

13 X

14 A COR INS 2 SETUP

15 A COR INS 2 SURF

16 A COR INS 2 WIRE

17 A COR INS 2 BND

18 A COR INS 2 CHECK

19 X

20 B CAV SETUP

21 B CAV SURF

22 B CAV WIRE

23 B CAV BND

24 B CAV CHECK

25 X

26 B CAV INS 1 SETUP

27 B CAV INS 1 SURF

28 B CAV INS 1 WIRE

29 B CAV INS 1 BND

30 B CAV INS 1 CHECK

31 X

32 B CAV INS 2 SETUP

33 B CAV INS 2 SURF

34 B CAV INS 2 WIRE

35 B CAV INS 2 BND

36 B CAV INS 2 CHECK

37 X

38 SLIDE 1 SETUP

39 SLIDE 1 SURF

40 SLIDE 1 WIRE

41 SLIDE 1 BND

42 SLIDE 1 CHECK

(AND SO ON)

X is a spare layer for each component

 

 

How someone can use the wrong geo in a layer

named 900 MISC is beyond me.

 

I was mainly talking about the customer data.

If I have to manipulate a surface from the original

data, I keep the original data. all data used

are tied to paths so the margin for error doesn't

exist, the margin for ignorance won't be paying

his mortgage from my company.

[Dave.L]

Rick,

 

I clarified my statement a few posts ago:

 

quote:

---

In my example, I was doing a "save as" from one part to another and THATS why I would not want the geo in the other part file on any level, it has no purpose.

---

If the geo has purpose, then sure I would keep it

[Zoober]

Do a save some...

[Thee Rickster ™]

Dave, I thought you were weighing the reasons for

deletion.

 

quote:

---

Rick, I would NEVER want any geo that is not part of the current part in the file, IMO, your asking for trouble if someone else works with the file.

---

I must of misunderstood.

 

I use to open all levels after finishing a job

and select all, then delete all geo that is not

associated. It hurt me once when customer changed

his mind back to his original design, 3 e.c's ago.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But for the record, an existing WCS cannot be manipulated well. That was my whole point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dave, this is not true at all.

 

The WCS can be manipulated however you like.

---

So, today I cam across another example to illustrate my point that an EXISTING WCS cannot be manipulated.

 

We are making a part in which the second operation uses machined soft jaws to hold the part (cut to match the part profile). We needed to rotate the part 180 degrees from how it was planed from the start. So, in this case I needed to go into MC and select my OP2 view/WCS and rotate it about the Z-axis 180 degrees. Can I do that, well sure, but not too easily.

 

Here are all the steps needed to do what should be a single click:

 

1) Select “Rotate WCS”

2) Enter the amount of rotation about the axis of my choice

3) Create a new view to save, MC forces this.

4) Rename my old OP2 view/WCS to temp, change the workoffset to -1

5) Rename the new view to OP2, change the workoffset to 2

6) Select my OP2 tool path group, edit common parameters and re-assign my new OP2 view/WCS.

7) Delete the original OP2 view now called temp.

 

So, someone please explain to me that this is an efficient process

[crazy^millman]

So Dave every other CAM system you have programmed made that one click of the mouse?

 

Also you can rename an existing WCS and the system will then take all existing operation associated with that an update them and making them dirty operations. So in reality you create 3 extra steps for no reason using the temp WCS. Also if you wanted to use a separate workofset then right click and change workoffset for all operations is a lot easier than edit common to me.

 

HTH

[Dave.L]

Ron,

 

Try my step by step outline, you will see what I am talking about.

 

MC allows you to move a WCS origin point all you want, but if you rotate it, you must create a new view. That is my complaint.

 

The 3 extra steps are a result of the forced new view.

[Joe788]

Dave, I think some of your frustration with WCS may have something to do with the way you're trying to use it. Most people when creating the WCS for their second op, would just create a new WCS based on however they are repositioning the part in the machine.

 

IE: Spin the model, WCS>WCS By Geometry>Click two legs (and maybe a new origin), and be done with it.

 

Or if by chance, there aren't two legs on the opposite side that represent the correct XY, and you just want to spin the WCS 180 and keep the same origin, just do:

 

WCS>Dynamic WCS>Origin>then hover over the Z gnomon until it turns to the rotation movement, and spin it 180. You've got your OP20 rotated WCS in 4 or 5 seconds.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Most people when creating the WCS for their second op, would just create a new WCS based on however they are repositioning the part in the machine.

---

I do the same.

 

 

Joe,

 

My frustration is not with the initial WCS selection. In most cases I don't have a problem with that (in most, not all).

 

My problem as described here has to do with CHANGING an existing WCS.

 

Do me a favor, try changing an existing WCS and you will understand exactly what I mean.

[Leigh @ Kodiak]

Dave,

Have you tried making a WCS with two lines, then moving it with Dynamic X form?

[Dave.L]

Guys,

 

First and foremost, thank you all for your input and suggestions.

 

However, what I have been mostly looking for is a correction if I had not understood how this works. I really don’t want to use what I perceive to be work-arounds. I have heard about the two line method several times and I don’t want to create geometry that I don’t need and that I don’t think should be required. Although I am not thrilled with all the steps I need to take, I would rather do that then create lines for the WCS since if I don’t need to alter an existing WCS, that would be a wasted step.

 

Mostly I was venting my frustration on how WCS works and hoping I was doing something wrong, but apparently when it comes to altering an existing WCS I am not. In other systems (CAD) I have used, altering a WCS, UCS, is simple and I think it should be the same in MC.

 

And Colin, yes, you understand the exact functions I think MC should already have. I struggle to understand why it would be any other way.

 

PS, I have been beating this dead horse so you guys would understand the extra steps needed if you need to alter an existing WCS. (without creating two lines to attach it to since the part already has plenty of geometry)

[crazy^millman]

Okay I will ask the question again.

 

quote:

---

Dave every other CAM system you have programmed made that one click of the mouse?

---

I also do what you are doing and like I said it does not require the 3 extra step is yes you have created a new view, but like I said if you call the view the same name as an existing view even if they are standard views then it will over write it and yes save you 3 of the steps you outlined.

 

Again please remember we are trying to help.

 

Also I have never seen a CAM program that made moving and changing a WCS or something like it read your mind. No matter what you did I see it always being more than one click of the mouse. There would have to be something that would require you to pick the function. There would have be something to require you to pick the place where you want it and there would have to be something to require you a place to rotate it and then finally there would have to be something to accept or reject that. Now I realize I am pretty stupid, but again what CAM system have you run that did all of that with only one mouse click since I see it being a minimum of 4 clicks or inputs or anything unless the CAM systems you have programmed with read your mind.

 

Take Soildworks you have to decide you want to do the function. You have to then apply it to somewhere. You then have to decide the movement amount and then you would have to decide to accept or reject it. Am I wrong or would not be 4 steps and not one simple click of the mouse?

 

PS: The dead house is you keep trying to compare the CAM system of Mastercam to the CAD system on Autocad or Solidworks they are not apples to apples they are apples to oranges.

[Dave.L]

Ron,

 

1) CAD or CAM, a WCS, UCS, etc is all the same thing, a user coordinate system so it IS apples and apples.

 

2) If MC did not force the new view, all would be fine. In MC a view and WCS are one in the same and there is absolutely no reason that altering a current WCS should cause a creation of a new view/WCS and be so difficult to alter one that already exists. It should be ease as:

 

a) Rotate WCS

enter the rotation amount for the axis you want

DONE (one click, enter value, press enter)

 

3) I have tried to save over an already existing view and this does not work.

 

4) If WCS had no issues, then the company you work for would have not created an add-on to better the functionality.

 

5) Altering a coordinate system in Solidworks is simple, you select and open the coordinate system feature and edit, it’s that simple. You are taking my “single mouse click” literally when I was not counting the number of clicks since I think people get the point. In ACAD, it’s also simple. UCS>ENTER>Z>ENTER>180 DEGREES – DONE.

 

Others have seemed to understand what I am saying. If it’s still not clear to you, feel free to call me anytime and we can talk about it.

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

Dave, I think Ron is correct about saving you a few steps, just make sure the new view you are creating has the exact same name as the original and your workaround just got a lot shorter...

---

Colin,

 

Man have I tried. It's does not work. I tried it again today before my step-by-step post and it did not work.