Autosync Rails

[MoMo1108]

Ok so first off can you use autosync rails for 5 axies milling, what i want to do is swarf mill or flank mill a blade.

The problem im haveing is that mastercam simply wont hold the profile of the blade it gouges in some spots and over cuts in others.The upper and lower rails are not the same curve or lenth. Even if i follow rulled surface, when i analyze the toolpath point to point there are devations. Im positive its because nurbs are not equal on both curves so the uvs are not straight point to point and i was hopeing autosync rails would do it but i cant get it to work if it even will with mill toolpaths. sorry if this is confuseing i dont know anyother way to describe what i want or its just that mastercam cant do it?

Thank you in advance

[MoMo1108]

huh lots of views but no responses .....

[Hardmill]

huh lots of views but no responses .....

 

Can you post your file so then maybe someone can take a look

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PEACE

[Jeremy Herron@DBS Solutions™]

Autosync rails is a funtion for wire, your problem almost has to be your tool axis control, but we can be of much more help without a file, or at least some screenshots.

[Chris Rizzo]

I vaguely know what you're after and will throw something out there. The vertical uv lines are "twisting" or not logically matching top to bottom edge?? Drive it by upper and lower wire, and fix it all so it makes "sense". THEN your autosync rail should work. (or by node)

 

Your just going to use the surface to create the new good wire.

 

Create curve one edge for the top and bottom rails.

Use the wall surface to create -curves - dynamic and/or create -curves- constant parameter. Those will create the vertical lines (the axis of the tool)

Break your upper and lowers into an equal number of entities, and create fresh vertical lines using constant parameter curve.

 

Drive the swarf by all that nice new geo.

 

i think :/

[Jayson Kramer]

Are we sure that this profile can be done with swarf as the blade maybe Convex or concave at certain points along the curves.

Like some have stated share a file please.

[Tyler Robertson]

what Chris said + if you use the more advanced wireframe/surface toolpaths, or advanced swarf you can add collision checking to your tool but you must make sure to define your flute/shaft in a way that makes sense with how you set your rules in collision checking. ie: if you gouge check against the shaft, make sure the shaft is what is actually gouging your part

[MoMo1108]

unfortunatly i can not supply a moddle due to company propriortoy methods and goverment contracts but to picture what i want is if you take a piece of paper thats rectangle and twist one end 90 deg to form a impeller blade thats the basic shape. what i dont understand is that max5 will swarf/flank mill it perfectly and thats what we use but im trying to stream line the process and eliminate that and use one cam system. i understand autosync rails is for wire but why dose it give me the option to use it in mill? i havent tryed the sugestions above yet so i will let you know of the outcome thank you everyone

p.s ive been told and it is my understanding the mastercam is kinda lagging in the true multi axies simtanious machining but is great for 3+2 ... thoughts ?

[Guest]

p.s ive been told and it is my understanding the mastercam is kinda lagging in the true multi axies simtanious machining but is great for 3+2 ... thoughts ?

 

lmao, from those who don't know how to use it.

 

I've programmed 5 axis simultaneous blades, as do many others around here. Not for nothing but it really sounds like some time spent with some training would be well spent time.

[MoMo1108]

lmao, from those who don't know how to use it.

 

I've programmed 5 axis simultaneous blades, as do many others around here. Not for nothing but it really sounds like some time spent with some training would be well spent time.

 

Hi john and i somewhat agree but it has been shown to me that mastercam dosent follow the profile to a T per say and i was disapointed when it was proven to me that it dosent follow the ruled surface or uv lines. im trying to upload a generic blade for people to see i just have to be very carefull of propriatery programing methods that are used. As far a training i am certified and ive taken indepth classes with multi axies with mike rosa

[MoMo1108]

basic blade form

GENERIC BLADE.MCX-6

[Tyler Robertson]

If you use the multiaxis custom paths for impeller/blade walls you can tell it to stay iso to surface rules, and a host of other options - so I don't know how you were proven that it doesn't follow ruled surface or uv lines? if anything it's harder to get it NOT to do that

[MoMo1108]

If you use the multiaxis custom paths for impeller/blade walls you can tell it to stay iso to surface rules, and a host of other options - so I don't know how you were proven that it doesn't follow ruled surface or uv lines? if anything it's harder to get it NOT to do that

 

Im not sure what you mean by iso and do you mean impeller blade swarf finish because that uses the surfaces or do i need to use the advance function can you upload an example ... it was proven wrong to me by a point to point analisis that showed the tool devation up to .011

[MoMo1108]

Chris,

I have done the syncing nodes and what not and im still getting the devation. it looks as though the surface is concave but then that leads me to ask why can it be done with max5. here is what i have come up with, if you verify it to a STL with a tight tolerance you can see the overcut, you can see the overcut just on the backplot allso. and thank you to everyone helping me im determinded to prove MX can do this and do it accuratly.

GENERIC BLADE_1.MCX-6

[Guest]

If the surface is concave, a taper mill with a bit of side angle or a lollipop cutter. But if it is concave no straight cutter can possibly cut it.

 

It will cut as close as it can but because of gouging, can not follow the profile. in that scenario, that's not a Mastercam issue, it's a bad tool choice issue.

 

JM2C