Feature request for X9?

[Bob W.]

I usually set my machine to retract to .25"-.5" above the part for rapid moves.

[guitar]

The OP called for a FEAURE REQUEST, not bug fix. Reading is fundamental.

What's funny is that is NOT a feature. It is a bug that has been overlooked for MANY versions of Mastercam. As I am referring to the retracting problem in the translate feature. I just did a translate/rotate of 36 slots and just laughed at the tool path created. Yeah, the best "feature" would be to fix the age old bugs.

[crazy^millman]

What's funny is that is NOT a feature. It is a bug that has been overlooked for MANY versions of Mastercam. As I am referring to the retracting problem in the translate feature. I just did a translate/rotate of 36 slots and just laughed at the tool path created. Yeah, the best "feature" would be to fix the age old bugs.

Using it for one year they cannot be age old bugs for you now can they?

[guitar]

Using it for one year they cannot be age old bugs for you now can they?

We have 3 different versions of MC running in the shop. They all have the same issues. Why do we have 3? Because old people have to get up to speed. It's really annoying going from pc to pc and having to program differently. 

One guy likes 9.1sp2. The other like X5 sp5237. and the rest are on X7. Not saying they are not capable at programming. They are fast at what they are used to. But, slow at adapting.

[crazy^millman]

We have 3 different versions of MC running in the shop. They all have the same issues. Why do we have 3? Because old people have to get up to speed. It's really annoying going from pc to pc and having to program differently. 

One guy likes 9.1sp2. The other like X5 sp5237. and the rest are on X7. Not saying they are not capable at programming. They are fast at what they are used to. But, slow at adapting.

 

They must be bowing every time you grace them with your abilities and work circles around them?

[mike93]

we were v9 until X3 "owner said Monday we are using x3" 1 month later had to use 9 barely could us it, all x versions,  vary little change just more improvements!! 

guitar

you have probably been machining for more the a year  but you are acting like 17 year old xxxx!!! and i have meet a few

 

---------Happy machining!

[CJep]

We have 3 different versions of MC running in the shop. They all have the same issues. Why do we have 3? Because old people have to get up to speed. It's really annoying going from pc to pc and having to program differently.

One guy likes 9.1sp2. The other like X5 sp5237. and the rest are on X7. Not saying they are not capable at programming. They are fast at what they are used to. But, slow at adapting.

Running the multiple versions of Mcam is more of a training issue than software issue. You are going to find it very difficult to support the V9 partly because of OS changes and it's 15yr old software, if someone is running the X5 software there's no difference in the interface with X7.

 

The crazy amount of "bugs" you refer to could be a training issue as well,...

 

However you don't want to talk solutions you just want to throw poo,...

 

Good day sir.

[Sticky]

I feel like I am not understanding something, how is this saving 40% off cycle times with this problem? Are your plunge rate feed rates really slow? Do you not have rapid retract set?

 

I do agree that it would be a nice feature if the transform/translate would only use the clearance value (when set to "only at start and end of operation") at the beginning and end of the transform op, but with some forethought with the linking parameters to start with, I'd be surprised if you would save more then 3 minutes on an hour long cycle.

[crazy^millman]

I feel like I am not understanding something, how is this saving 40% off cycle times with this problem? Are your plunge rate feed rates really slow? Do you not have rapid retract set?

 

I do agree that it would be a nice feature if the transform/translate would only use the clearance value (when set to "only at start and end of operation") at the beginning and end of the transform op, but with some forethought with the linking parameters to start with, I'd be surprised if you would save more then 3 minutes on an hour long cycle.

 

 

Sticky really comes down to the number of parts per face on a tombstone. Got 100 parts per face with 3 extra seconds per part doing the jackhammer stuff then there is 300 seconds on one tool per face. Have 24 tools doing this then it starts to add up real quick.

[Sticky]

Sticky really comes down to the number of parts per face on a tombstone. Got 100 parts per face with 3 extra seconds per part doing the jackhammer stuff then there is 300 seconds on one tool per face. Have 24 tools doing this then it starts to add up real quick.

 

I understand that, its all I do.

 

But I also know this, most modern machining centers they move so fast you are going to have a hard time getting 40% savings, and by hard time, I mean impossible. Lets say your Z depth is -1.25", you have your retract set .25" above the part, that means you have to move a total of 1.5" in, and 1.5" out, for a total of 3".

 

Now lets say you only run your machine at 1187ipm rapids, that means it moves 19.78"/second, which means that 3" of movement takes .15 seconds. 100 pcs x .15 seconds is a total of 15 seconds, which means for a 40% savings your cycle time for 100 pcs would need to be under 45 seconds total/.45seconds per pc.

 

If you are running at full rapid on a new machine (2362ipm) this time gets cut in half. Also I would be VERY surprised to see 24 tools on array of parts that can actually stay down at full Z depth in between parts.

 

In a lot situations having no retract isn't possible due to fixture and part constraints. I think that this for me is the biggest surprise, is how you have so many parts where you actually can do this, all the other parts on my tombstones are in the way, and a lot of the work is done in cavities where of course this won't work.

 

I still think having the transform op using the tool paths linking parameters differently would be nice, but I think the transform operation has other things that need more attention.

[Joe788]

Sticky really comes down to the number of parts per face on a tombstone. Got 100 parts per face with 3 extra seconds per part doing the jackhammer stuff then there is 300 seconds on one tool per face. Have 24 tools doing this then it starts to add up real quick.

 

This is what I'm not quite understanding. Maybe my post behaves differently? We have programs that run 15 parts on a face. I set my clearance and retract at .1

 

The tool comes in to .1, works on the first part, goes back up to .1, moves to the next part, through all the parts. Then it goes home in Z, indexes the B axis, and starts on the next side. The Z home move is triggered in the post by the B move. I can't really picture needing to do anything different than that?  I must have different types of parts than Bob, because I can't even recall the last time I would have wanted to move from part to part without lifting high enough to clear the part?

 

That's why I was thinking a screen shot would help.

[Sticky]

This is what I'm not quite understanding. Maybe my post behaves differently? We have programs that run 15 parts on a face. I set my clearance and retract at .1

 

The tool comes in to .1, works on the first part, goes back up to .1, moves to the next part, through all the parts. Then it goes home in Z, indexes the B axis, and starts on the next side. The Z home move is triggered in the post by the B move. I can't really picture needing to do anything different than that?  I must have different types of parts than Bob, because I can't even recall the last time I would have wanted to move from part to part without lifting high enough to clear the part?

 

That's why I was thinking a screen shot would help.

From what I am gathering from what they are saying is that they have outside contours where they can keep the tool down at the bottom Z plane and move in between parts.

 

I don't think its a common scenario myself.

[CJep]

I was able to increase cycle efficiency by 20% just by changing the start and end positions in series of toolpaths. If I'm able to trim a 1-2min ok, not such a big deal. I worked with a programmer that was able to trim 20min from our first article proof of concept file. That job ran in the machine for 4yr, so sometimes it's just a matter of let's see what I can do to make this faster by trimmin' the fat and then other times it's about saving a crapton of $

Lately I've been trying to program parts with the least number of toolpaths possible.

[Guest]

Proper use of retracts and clearances and feed ins can save a ton definitely. Usually I have my clearaances set to .1" during 1st run. After that, if it's good, I'll drop that down to like .01"

[Thee Rickster ™]

 

I can't really picture needing to do anything different than that?

 

Here Crazy, a visual.

 

My boss and I particularly like less (clear plane)rapid retracts and time savers like this.

It keep our older Hass machines running longer by feeding to the next station

when ever possible. We also like the efficiency that, as Crazy said, adds up over

our 28 cnc's over time.

 

 

When I run my 20 hr 16 tool mold programs on graphite i can zig zag my waterline

rests/semi finish and finish paths (using min distance, which optimizes feeds then rapids)and save

a ton of time on the difference of not using the rapid retracts. My steel molds I have to use

a different approach and as a result get less efficient path, but either way it is the end result

that matters.

 

Here is an example of a fixture that holds one style of 36 identical inserts (form a ring)

i got rid of all the rapid retracts with in each tool path per insert.

but cant get it to feed to each location or at minimum for the finale contour path

 

I've ran this program dozens of times per Rib insert style for all 6 different molds.

If i could I would never use rapid plane(clear retracts) ever again until the end of the program

and keep the tool down always....If i could.

 

 

these are 3-1/2" tall inserts

 

[Bob W.]

 

I understand that, its all I do.

 

But I also know this, most modern machining centers they move so fast you are going to have a hard time getting 40% savings, and by hard time, I mean impossible. Lets say your Z depth is -1.25", you have your retract set .25" above the part, that means you have to move a total of 1.5" in, and 1.5" out, for a total of 3".

 

Now lets say you only run your machine at 1187ipm rapids, that means it moves 19.78"/second, which means that 3" of movement takes .15 seconds. 100 pcs x .15 seconds is a total of 15 seconds, which means for a 40% savings your cycle time for 100 pcs would need to be under 45 seconds total/.45seconds per pc.

 

If you are running at full rapid on a new machine (2362ipm) this time gets cut in half. Also I would be VERY surprised to see 24 tools on array of parts that can actually stay down at full Z depth in between parts.

 

In a lot situations having no retract isn't possible due to fixture and part constraints. I think that this for me is the biggest surprise, is how you have so many parts where you actually can do this, all the other parts on my tombstones are in the way, and a lot of the work is done in cavities where of course this won't work.

 

I still think having the transform op using the tool paths linking parameters differently would be nice, but I think the transform operation has other things that need more attention.

[Bob W.]

Bug? My response didn't post...

[Bob W.]

I feel like I am not understanding something, how is this saving 40% off cycle times with this problem? Are your plunge rate feed rates really slow? Do you not have rapid retract set?

 

I do agree that it would be a nice feature if the transform/translate would only use the clearance value (when set to "only at start and end of operation") at the beginning and end of the transform op, but with some forethought with the linking parameters to start with, I'd be surprised if you would save more then 3 minutes on an hour long cycle.

These are 90 second parts run in a column of 15 and the original program hadn't really been gone through. To get a 40% reduction in cycle times I am completely going through the programs and pushing cutters harder, changing tooling, reordering things, and drawing in geometry to eliminate retracts. I break my roughing and finishing contour toolpaths into two operations so I can run different feed rates for roughing and finishing. This leaves me with a 30 different cuts, each with a retract and plunge unless I draw in the linking geometry to keep the tool down, which reduces it to two. It isn't the height of the retract that I am trying to eliminate, it is the exact stop at the end of the lead-in or out, retract, re-position, and plunge. These are each only a fraction of a second but all added up they are probably a second or two. Now given 3-4 of these per part it becomes significant when compared to a 90 second cycle time. I would estimate drawing in geometry to eliminate retracts is good for a 10-15% reduction on these particular parts.

[Bob W.]

This is what I'm not quite understanding. Maybe my post behaves differently? We have programs that run 15 parts on a face. I set my clearance and retract at .1

 

The tool comes in to .1, works on the first part, goes back up to .1, moves to the next part, through all the parts. Then it goes home in Z, indexes the B axis, and starts on the next side. The Z home move is triggered in the post by the B move. I can't really picture needing to do anything different than that?  I must have different types of parts than Bob, because I can't even recall the last time I would have wanted to move from part to part without lifting high enough to clear the part?

 

That's why I was thinking a screen shot would help.

These are generally contour cuts on the exterior of the part. The parts are spaced at about 1.5" so to keep the tool down and feed to the next instance (~75-200 ipm) is much faster than retracting and doing a rapid move to the next part. There are no obstructions in the way that would cause a collision if wanting to rapid at full depth to the next part.

[Zoffen]

Alot of times if i'm looking to squeeze every second out i'll use no clearance or retract in my operations and use the home/ref points to control the clearances. Saves alot of time and i don't have to draw as much custom geo.