cavity work

[MrFish]

Doing some cavity work with some deep narrow slots and small fillets at the moment.

 

Is it just me or are the new school toolpaths more hassle than they are worth, most of the time.

 

Had 6 different attempts at getting what I want with new school area clear, scollop, rest rough etc and most either locked up on "linking pocket passes" at 11% each time, or took like hours to process and then seemed to have way too many leads and links.

 

Same settings in old school pocket rough, scollop, contour rough etc = quick processing , nice easy to read toolpathes without a million lead and link moves etc.

 

Have used the new school before on larger parts with sucess but do remember them taking a long time then too. Like everyone I like to use new shiny stuff, But it seems like a step backwards at the moment.

[Chris In-House Solutions]

My recommendation would be to try the new HS toolpaths with your tolerances opened up, step down and step over larger than you will actually take. Generate the toolpath and see if it will work for you. Once you know it will work then start refining it to your specs. This way at least you know it will work for you on your part and your not wasting your time or pulling your hair out.

[Jeremy Herron@DBS Solutions™]

The new 3d highspeed toolpaths almost always leave the the legacy ones in the dust if you know how to use them and have a computer up for the task. Do you have a file you can share so we can assist you more?

[MrFish]

The new 3d highspeed toolpaths almost always leave the the legacy ones in the dust if you know how to use them and have a computer up for the task. Do you have a file you can share so we can assist you more?

 

 

Hi Jeremy

 

have uploaded a stripped down file to X6_Files on the ftp site - title "Lower Ring 1". Would be interested to see if your system crunches this op , as mine locks up every time on "linking passes" part of the processing.

 

Just noiticed that I have uploaded it with my default finishing tolerance, you can losen this up a bit if need be, locked up for me either way.

 

Thanks for any help

[gcode]

I tried it a couple of times with the rig in my siggy

It stalled out at 11% while linking the offset passes

Mastercam didn't lock up.

I had multithreading on and could still work, but the calculating

stalled at 11%. I let it sit for an hour then shut it down.

[MrFish]

I tried it a couple of times with the rig in my siggy

It stalled out at 11% while linking the offset passes

Mastercam didn't lock up.

I had multithreading on and could still work, but the calculating

stalled at 11%. I let it sit for an hour then shut it down.

 

Thanks Gcode. Yes this is exactly what i get. Calling it a lock up was bad terminology on my part.

I applied the exact same settings to an old school scollop toolpath and it crunched the numbers in about 10 mins and looks pretty good.

[gcode]

I'll send this in to QC in the morning.. watching the Mars landing right now

[gcode]

bug report filed.. I'll report back with findings

[MrFish]

bug report filed.. I'll report back with findings

 

Thanks heaps Gcode, saves me another job.

[Thee Rickster ™]

Hey Tom, did you try to use space claim to maybe

see if the geometry needed fixin?

 

[Hardmill]

Hey Tom, did you try to use space claim to maybe

see if the geometry needed fixin?

 

:wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PEACE

[MrFish]

Hey Tom, did you try to use space claim to maybe

see if the geometry needed fixin?

 

This could be possible as the model was originally created in Rhino cad (surfaces) then imported into solidworks to create mould split, then into mastercam X6 mu2 for programming.

[gcode]

I will see what Spaceclaim has to say when I get to work this morning

[gcode]

Spaceclaim found no errors in the model

[gcode]

Iheard back from QC

 

"I was able to repeat your findings in X6-MU2. It hung at 11% in the linking stage.

I poked around and I did see that there were some engraving entities that

did not have the “Shut off surfaces” (found on level 9) on them.

They were the “A” and “L” below the larger group of letters.

I just copied the shut off surfaces form A and L in the larger group of letters, onto these 2, added these surfaces to the toolpath and it did successfully regenerate."

[MrFish]

Iheard back from QC

 

"I was able to repeat your findings in X6-MU2. It hung at 11% in the linking stage.

I poked around and I did see that there were some engraving entities that

did not have the “Shut off surfaces” (found on level 9) on them.

They were the “A” and “L” below the larger group of letters.

I just copied the shut off surfaces form A and L in the larger group of letters, onto these 2, added these surfaces to the toolpath and it did successfully regenerate."

 

Thanks Gcode.

 

As the boundary was dictating that the tool never machined anywhere near the AL engaving i would not have expected this to have any affect on the toolpath processing. You have to be a bit of a psychic to program in mastercam sometimes