Opticore Not Obeying Containment: MC X6

[ccs86]

Hey guys, in need of some help!

 

MCX6 has been really frustrating with containment issues. The latest example is using an Opticore surface HS tool path in Mastercam's Top view for my tool plane.

 

I have a square sketched out on the top plane and selected as a containment boundary.

 

I've tried outside, center, and inside (plus additional offset) for containment options.

 

The majority of the tool path will remain inside the boundary, but without fail a couple portions will rip outside it. I really don't want to be forced to trim the tool path to avoid crashing the machine.

 

Here's a picture to help:

 

Thanks!

[uncle_dolan]

Are you using check surfaces as well or just containment boundary?

[ccs86]

I have tried, but the surface HS tool paths warn that they treat check geometry as drive geometry. So, I give it the whole body as drive geometry. I've also tried omitting the faces in the offending cylinders.

[ccs86]

I tried adding a radius to the containment loop, offsetting the loop by the tool's radius manually, and selecting center containment. Here's what I get... I just don't understand, this seems like it should be very simple.

[DAN 1313]

ran into this same type of stuff. make the two surface areas that you dont want to violate bigger, going outside the containment boundry

[ccs86]

ran into this same type of stuff. make the two surface areas that you dont want to violate bigger, going outside the containment boundry

 

 

I'm not sure I understand.

 

I would like to cut the part in the middle, as well as the square supports, leaving a nice smooth face on those left/right containment borders (from the first picture).

 

I want it to completely avoid the two cylindrical faces, and that air space all together.

 

Check out my second picture. I shrunk the containment boundary so that it is offset inwards of the off limits faces by the tool radius. Still no luck.

[Brian B 74]

My understanding of OptiCore is the boundary you select is actually defining the stock you are cutting. If you want to contain the tool path in a boundary try using OptiArea.

 

Hope this helps.

[DAN 1313]

what i meant, increace the size of those round ends by an inch per side so that it goes beyond your containment. your telling the system there is stock there. so i dont think it will violate that area after you do this. also include those round ends as your drive surfaces selection.. if you dont want to actually machine those round ends just increase the stock inwards on the model and regen. im pretty sure you will get the results your looking for.

[ccs86]

My understanding of OptiCore is the boundary you select is actually defining the stock you are cutting. If you want to contain the tool path in a boundary try using OptiArea.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

Thanks Brian!

 

That makes sense I guess, since Core paths try to attack from the outside -> in. This part is a little of both since I like the core approach on the long sides (vs helixing into the the middle), but still need to avoid the short side boundaries.

 

I switched over to OptiArea and am having no containment issues, though I have to let it plunge for each pass.

 

Mastercam is just frustrating sometimes (most times! haha). I still cannot understand why the Surface High Speed finishing paths will not accept check geometry. If you only select a few faces that you want to finish as drive faces, the tool will go gouging through the rest of the part. Yet if you select the whole body, it wants to machine everything (re: lots of redundant cutting). It seems like a miserable fail to not allow you to make Mastercam aware of the entire part (for collision avoidance), and machine only select faces.

 

Any suggestions on that?

[ccs86]

what i meant, increace the size of those round ends by an inch per side so that it goes beyond your containment. your telling the system there is stock there. so i dont think it will violate that area after you do this. also include those round ends as your drive surfaces selection.. if you dont want to actually machine those round ends just increase the stock inwards on the model and regen. im pretty sure you will get the results your looking for.

 

 

I guess you are saying that those cylinders should protrude inwards, past the containment loop. I've tried that.

 

As far as stock goes, MC is aware that the stock spans the entire piece. I added additional model geometry that matches the stock at the ends, to help avoid the 4-axis jaws and maintain the part's orientation. This picture should show it better:

[Brian B 74]

I cannot remember the last time I used Check Surfaces. I have never had any luck with them. Plus in increases the processing time exponentially. I just use boundaries and create additional surfaces to keep tools off/out of areas I don't want to cut. Quick and easy.

[Rotary Ninja]

LOL. I just made a similar post in the industrial forum today. I had the exact same problem and switched to Core Roughing to do what I wanted to do.

[ccs86]

LOL. I just made a similar post in the industrial forum today. I had the exact same problem and switched to Core Roughing to do what I wanted to do.

 

 

Just read your post, haha. Yeah, it's a pain. I really like the Opticore strategy much better than OptiArea for my particular part... much more efficient cutting. No helixing needed.

 

I understand that core paths move out to in, but that's no good reason to ignore boundaries.

[Rotary Ninja]

I agree. Opticore should look at the containment boundary and use it. Because that is exactly the toolpath I want to use but I can't without some trickery.

[MotorCityMinion]

This appeared in another post and looks like a option worth pursuing.

 

Posted Today, 02:02 AM

"Create draft surfaces from your boundry, Move them above your cutting levels and add them to your selection Like This

 

Henk van Ommeren

PMP Precision Metal Parts

Duiven, the Netherlands

 

X6 MU3 Mill3 5AX, Solids

[Mick]

I cannot remember the last time I used Check Surfaces. I have never had any luck with them. Plus in increases the processing time exponentially. I just use boundaries and create additional surfaces to keep tools off/out of areas I don't want to cut. Quick and easy.

 

I used to be the same, and never used Check Surfaces, and like you, used containment boundaries or created "containment surfaces". Lately I've found in a couple of instances that check surfaces have actually worked the way I wanted. But for the most part, yeah, Containment boundaries or "surfaces" for me too

[wbajema]

Under the cut parameters page there is a drop down under gap-motion-retract, "when avoiding a boundary" should be what you want

[ccs86]

Under the cut parameters page there is a drop down under gap-motion-retract, "when avoiding a boundary" should be what you want

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've tried every option within that dropdown.

 

I'm making a new part with a similar setup and am having the same issue again. Mastercam mostly obeys the containment boundary, but mostly is not good enough. I'm failing to grasp how such a simple option fails so badly. NO portion of a toolpath should exist outside of the boundary. After working with CamWorks a bit lately, I'm amazed at how it actually listens to the different avoid options without fail.

 

Help!!!

[ccs86]

This appeared in another post and looks like a option worth pursuing.

 

Posted Today, 02:02 AM

"Create draft surfaces from your boundry, Move them above your cutting levels and add them to your selection Like This

 

 

 

 

 

You mean to create a surface everywhere outside the containment boundary, raised well above the part, and add it to the drive sufaces?

[ccs86]

Well, I tried creating the raised planar surface, selecting it as drive geometry, then excluding it using steep/shallow z-limits... and bingo. I got what should have been created with ONLY the containment boundary.

 

This workaround will get me there, but it's a pain. Since I'm rotating this part with the 4th axis, I have to create containment boundaries AND planar surfaces for each operation set.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, I just wish MC would get their software working properly!

[Jayson Kramer]

maybe the the toolpath you are choosing is not the right one for this or what you want. as you want to rough out the part and then index to a new plane and rough again correct.How about sharing your model?

[MotorCityMinion]

"This workaround will get me there, but it's a pain. Since I'm rotating this part with the 4th axis, I have to create containment boundaries AND planar surfaces for each operation set."

 

I don't know if I'd call this a workaround, perhaps creative thinking. I've been using both planer and non planer dummy drive surfaces for quite a while with many different tool paths to get the motion I want.

 

 

From what I've read somewhere on the net....

 

X7. Containment Boundary Improvements.

 

When selecting chains for Area Clearance, OptiArea, Rest, and Optirest toolpaths, you can now specify chains to restrict tool motion.

[ccs86]

maybe the the toolpath you are choosing is not the right one for this or what you want. as you want to rough out the part and then index to a new plane and rough again correct.How about sharing your model?

 

 

There are two major roughing toolpaths in MasterCAM, Core and Area. This part is a core part in my eyes, just with hard boundaries on two sides.

 

I did a similar part in the beginning of this thread, and had to use area roughing to avoid nasty collisions. I ended up with a FAR less efficient toolpath.

 

On this exact same model, I generated a core roughing toolpath in CamWorks, gave it the same boundary, and it came out perfectly right away.

 

Here's the file, just change the extension to .IGS

450_link_actuator_v2_CAM.txt

[ccs86]

From what I've read somewhere on the net....

 

X7. Containment Boundary Improvements.

 

When selecting chains for Area Clearance, OptiArea, Rest, and Optirest toolpaths, you can now specify chains to restrict tool motion.

 

 

By improvement, I hope they mean "actually functions", hahaha.

 

It works great in OptiArea, but is buggged out in OptiCore and Core toolpaths. A boundary isn't a subjective thing. There is no legitimate reason to move the tool outside the countainment boundary (unless above the clearance plane I guess. Would be nice if that was optional as well).

[MotorCityMinion]

"There is no legitimate reason to move the tool outside the countainment boundary"

 

LOL, approximately 50% of what I would like to do would include the outside function. (Think boundaries in SF Contour). Don't want to machine a certain area? Stay out of the middle instead of off the ends? Select outside.