Opticore Not Obeying Containment: MC X6

[ccs86]

"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.

 

 

 

Are you saying that you use containment boundaries to create avoidance areas instead of containment sometimes? Absolutely, it makes sense to me that you can create a closed chain, then then tell MasterCAM to either stay inside, or outside of this boundary, and it should do so.

[MotorCityMinion]

Yes, I believe that's exactly how the logical option for boundaries should work. There is a major problem with tools/options being used in one toolpath not functioning or behaving the same way in another toolpath. Granted there probably are some valid reasons for this situation, but in most cases, it seems like more BS and lack of effort to correct the situation before releasing it to the public. Try explaining to a foreman or a trainee why I can use this option here and not there when both scenarios should be valid with the same option. IMO, the same can be said about check surfaces as well. Some paths use em, some don't. And those that do can often freak out the toolpath in the check surface region and create less than satisfactory motion on entry and exit moves. Granted other CAM systems I've seen can exhibit these same conditions to some degree so this isn't a unique situation we're talking about here.

[ccs86]

Yes, I believe that's exactly how the logical option for boundaries should work. There is a major problem with tools/options being used in one toolpath not functioning or behaving the same way in another toolpath. Granted there probably are some valid reasons for this situation, but in most cases, it seems like more BS and lack of effort to correct the situation before releasing it to the public. Try explaining to a foreman or a trainee why I can use this option here and not there when both scenarios should be valid with the same option. IMO, the same can be said about check surfaces as well. Some paths use em, some don't. And those that do can often freak out the toolpath in the check surface region and create less than satisfactory motion on entry and exit moves. Granted other CAM systems I've seen can exhibit these same conditions to some degree so this isn't a unique situation we're talking about here.

 

 

With you 100% there.

 

Lacking continuity between identically labled options within different toolpaths is lazy. Displaying options that have NO functionality is just as pointless (ie. check geometry in any high speed toolpath).

In my mind, you should be able to give a high speed (roughing or finishing) path ALL of your geometry, as a reference for collision avoidance (this would include any fixtures you've chosen to model); then select one, multiple, or all faces as drive geometry. Roughing ops would look at the stock boundaries or rest parameters to calculate where it will remove material, finishing paths would assume a roughed part and just follow the drive faces.

[gsingh]

try these....