X7 MU2 WIRE - No Core Bug?

[Brian B 74]

When doing a no core toolpath - if I set the XY plane to incremental 0 and have the geometry in 3D space it puts the J plane in my code to 0 (it doesn't pick up on the Z level of the geometry).  It also backplots as if the geometry is at Z0.  Regular contour toolpath work correctly.

 

Is this a bug?

 

Thanks,

 

BB

[Del.]

Why are you using incremental  xy height?

 

 

When using no core planes don't need to be defined other than for back plot visualization 

[Brian B 74]

I have a core block that is getting welded and the weld with cover up an ejector pin.  The pin is going to get wired +.005" on diameter.  Since there is relief behind the pin hole I created a curve on the edge of my solid - put a wire start point at the center - and used that to push my tool path.  I made it incremental 0 and gave my UV plane incremental 1.55.  This would make the code post as such:

 

N008 G92 X0. Y0. I1.55 J2.66272

 

Now - because of my ignorance - I am assuming that the Fanuc control uses the I and J to calculate overburn.  Is this a correct assuption?  I don't want the overburn calculated on the entire length of the hole (4") when I am only cutting 1.55" of it.

 

Thanks for the help Del!

[Del.]

Brian, The wire will only use the J and I planes to figure tapers and 4 axis.

 

 

Just set your machine conditions in the AI set screen to to 1.550 thick material.

 

 

Make sure in your parameters under NO CORE that you uncheck the associate to library and where it says stock to leave, set it at .002. This will give you .002/side to skim on on your regular contour passes. I would change my starting pass number to 2 for my regular contour passes and set my number of passes to 2 not including rough pass. it will now take 3 skims starting with your pass 2 because the first pass probably wouldn't burn any material out.

[Brian B 74]

Ok. I see your logic (and it makes sense).

 

I only no core small holes (<3/16) so I usually leave .005/s and then do a normal 4 skim cycle.  I don't know what overburn it is using so I just figure .004"/s to be safe.  I don't no core very often.  I will try your method next time.

 

BB

[Del.]

That would work too Brian

[Brian B 74]

But still going back to one of the original questions - with this not working - is it a bug?

[Del.]

But still going back to one of the original questions - with this not working - is it a bug?

I think it's more of a post issue. Mine doesn't post an I or J if I am doing 2d geometry, but it won't hurt your program as long as there are no T codes or UV moves and your program says M15 P0 and not M15 P1 OR M15 P11

[Brian B 74]

I say it's a bug because the verify and backplot show it incorrect.  The verify is horrible with the Wire.  If I am using an alternate WCS (not the TOP) the wire guides are always gouging the part in verify.  I have to rely on the old school backplot and that scares me.

[Del.]

Send me a zip to go file and I'll look at it tomorrow. Send it to my email that you should still have.

[Del.]

14513-201_202.Z2G

 

 

Brian, I just created a surface from a solid and then created a curve on all the edges of the hole  and set my xy height at z2.6627 and uv plane or top at z4.1861. 

[Oppiz]

You can make your no core verify work if you raise your rapid height and your UV trim plane

[Brian B 74]

My issues lie with the UV height being incremental.  I have my post extract this value for the incremental I setting with my G92.  It's not an issue if I just do an old school back plot with Quick Verify turned on.  What Del has said makes sense.  I may just have to alter my thinking for these 2D tool paths.