Do you move your part or Make a new WCS?

[Pitka_Guru]

I'm a complete noob to 5-axis other than taking the MastercamU 4axis rotary and 5 axis courses and I today was day 1 of 5 axis training at inhouse solutions. I'm getting some conflicting information from MastercamU (Mike Mattera) vs what the instructor at in house is teaching for 4 and 5 axis parts.  

 

Should I be moving the part to TOP WCS and origin or leave the part in 3d space and make a new WCS from there? 

 

I generally never move a part, I create a new WCS and go from there. I've found it easier for importing updates and other parts of assemblies when I need to.  

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

[EX-wccprogrammer]

In theory, it makes no difference if you move the part to the WCS or the WCS to the part.  The deciding factor is going to be the post that you use.  Most posts are written to work around the Top WCS as a baseline, and may not output correctly if you place the WCS on the part.

 

I have written my own 5AX post, which is not reliant on the Top WCS.  So, using my own post, I could place the WCS on the part and get good code.

 

Program a feature one way, and program the same feature the other way.  Post each version, and compare files.  You will figure out quickly what works.

 

HTH 

[Gracjan aka Pullo]

A few versions back Mr.Apro did a reshuffle of the five-axis suff we had in Mcam. before that you had the Mastercam stuff and then you had the Moduleworks stuff . All this is has been rehashed and put into a blender. X4 was the last seperate version. 

Now with the moduleworks stuff  everything relative to the coordinate system like retracts will not be based on your WCS ,but on a WCS whose Z direction is the same as the one when you open a fresh Mcam.

everything will work but you'll have to do readjust your thinking.

 

So my strategy is if have a small job (an  hour or so ) I won't move/rotate  my stuff, but on the biggies ( expensive, big stuff, many days of programming ) I save the part to a seperate new file reorient it so the original Top is my Top and concentrate on the job itself.

 

Gracjan

[Jayson Kramer]

 

In theory, it makes no difference if you move the part to the WCS or the WCS to the part.  The deciding factor is going to be the post that you use.  Most posts are written to work around the Top WCS as a baseline, and may not output correctly if you place the WCS on the part.

Following EX-wccprogrammer like he states there are factors. in most I can use a New WCS but on some machines and posts you have to move it to Top WCS.

 

So to answer I do both. good question for allot of people.

[Tony35]

so what do you if you have multi-load fixture say 6 up load?

[Pitka_Guru]

Thanks Guys! I guess I'll have to wait until I get back on the machine and start posting some code to see how our post works. Then find what's best for our parts. 

 

I'd like to hear what people do in Tony35's situation above?

[EX-wccprogrammer]

so what do you if you have multi-load fixture say 6 up load?

 

I'd like to hear what people do in Tony35's situation above?

 

Same as above, but the Top WCS has to be on true center of rotation, and the other work offsets have to match actual locations in the machine setup.

 

If you have more than one work offset in a 5AX program, it can get very confusing to move the WCS to the part.  I would strongly recommend moving the part(s) to the WCS.  When the setup is done, check real feature locations to actual center of rotation.  Then make the cad model match the real locations.

 

Be careful, there is a lot that can go wrong using multiple work offsets in 4AX or 5AX programming.  In doing so, the programmer loses control of the program.  The fate of the part is in the operator's hands (or the setup man).

 

When I write a program, I am very reluctant to use multiple work offsets, unless I am using machine probing to find all of them.  I try to control the manufacturing process as much as possible, to avoid scrap.  Maybe I would feel differently if I was also the machine operator.

 

JM2CFWIW   Good Luck! 

 

[JAMMAN]

I am a part mover only. I have never in my career adjusted WCS. One shop where we had 4 large gantry mills I drew the table and programmed everything from machine home. G54 stayed X0 Y0. and we did run multiple parts on the tables. Sent the probe around, drag and rotate the part picture till it fit in the rectangle.

 

I guess I'm just simple like that, easier to put parts in a box than to put a box over the part.

[Tony35]

yes i am probing the parts

i have the center and top of the fixture set at WCS top

it ran thru vericut fine we will soon find out

[Dont]

In 5 axis and 3+2 I move the part because I have a template file with MZRP and vice and fixtures with 5 planes and view sheets for each. On the 3 axis stuff I leave part alone and make planes for all machined sides.

[mikenaturalice]

My post gives me an error if I am not using the default TOP as my wcs. I don't know if I could work around that or not... I normally move my part to the top wcs in the orientation I am going to start machining it and program everything (at least the 5 sides I can get to) from there. When I machine the bottom of the part I am usually using a fixture to hold the part so I make a new program using the fixture and having the part mounted in the fixture with the bottom ( the section of the part that is held in the vise, does not have to be the 'bottom' ) of the part as my new top wcs. 

[Reko]

I move the part where I know I will want it to be for the 5-Axis operation... then I use WCS for everything else like the 1st qualifying operation.

 

So, both for me.

[Dan@home]

I find it way easier and seems more acurate to move a plane than it is to move a large complex model. I have been off a couple of tenths and days into it, and had to start over (because I moved the part). Probable for my own satisfaction and peace of mind.

[Thee Awbade™]

It's good practice in my opinion to move the WCS. Many higher-security models etc that you may end up using later need to be left in their original co-ordinates for verification down the road (At least here in the Aerospace Industry.) I recommend leaving it where it is and moving your WCS around it. 

[civiceg]

I have never had a customer or individual have an issue with moving the part to the WCS, east coast Aerospace industry. But, I have heard the same thinking from others on here. 

 

A 4th axis large horizontal part, when rotating around the c/l, would be a waste of time to create all new planes. Also, I think surface tool paths like Flowline don't preform as well when using an arbitrary WCS.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

I am old school guy I always move  part and prefer to have wcs TCP

I always prefer to be straightforward and as simple as possible

[Aaron Eberhard]

Just an FYI specifically about Multiaxis: Previously, the toolpaths were NOT WCS aware (i.e. if you told it to rotate around the X axis, that was TOP's X axis, not the WCS you were working in).

 

 

Starting with X9, ALL multiaxis toolpaths should be working correctly relative to the WCS that your toolpath is set to.

 

 

Hope this helps!

 

 

Cheers,

[Newbeeee™]

I am old school guy I always move  part and prefer to have wcs TCP

I always prefer to be straightforward and as simple as possible

Yes - simple is best Big Bear!

We do the exact same thing here

[mowens]

In aerospace I never move the part. They are created in the aircraft coordinate system. Moving can really screw things up down the road.

[Newbeeee™]

In aerospace I never move the part. They are created in the aircraft coordinate system. Moving can really screw things up down the road.

Mike - you're obviously talking Airframing (Aerospace).

For all us Bit Makers (Aerospace) it really doesn't matter in my experience.

[Pitka_Guru]

Interesting to see this thread brought back to life. As I have gained more experience with 5 axis, I have become a part mover. The driving factors were our Haas Trunnion using c.o.r for programming and that pre x9 was not WCS aware as Aaron mentioned above.

 

I do prefer leaving my part where it is (my background is automotive) Any 3 axis parts remained in car position and id creat my own wcs and go from there. I hated having to merge an updated part over and over from car position in to die position. It felt like every part had 20 updates by the time a job was finished. Or merging a die design over parts that were moved to wcs zero.

 

I don't think it's a black and white issue, it really depends on the type of work you do day to day and if X9 is now wcs aware then none of this matters imo.

[mowens]

I guess it depends on how your shop is set up. Most places I have been, if you move the part out of aircraft coordinates, you can screw things up for the tool designers and others. I guess if you're at a small shop and do everything yourself is doesn't matter.

 

It's kind of funny; when I started programming we used APT-AC. No 3D models. We always moved the part. Once we started using Catia and incorporating 3 dimensional pre-assembly we had to change our ways.

[Newbeeee™]

Interesting to see this thread brought back to life. As I have gained more experience with 5 axis, I have become a part mover. The driving factors were our Haas Trunnion using c.o.r for programming and that pre x9 was not WCS aware as Aaron mentioned above.

 

I do prefer leaving my part where it is (my background is automotive) Any 3 axis parts remained in car position and id creat my own wcs and go from there. I hated having to merge an updated part over and over from car position in to die position. It felt like every part had 20 updates by the time a job was finished. Or merging a die design over parts that were moved to wcs zero.

 

I don't think it's a black and white issue, it really depends on the type of work you do day to day and if X9 is now wcs aware then none of this matters imo.

Interesting - I didn't realise automotive was 'don't move'. is it a Catia thing as most car makers are using it???

[David Colin]

For milling i'm moving part for first operation then I'm using WCS for next ones if any. For lathe (i'm still stuck in X3 but should finally upgrade X9 soon.cool) i'm always moving part as WCS doesn't really work...

[guitar]

Just an FYI specifically about Multiaxis: Previously, the toolpaths were NOT WCS aware (i.e. if you told it to rotate around the X axis, that was TOP's X axis, not the WCS you were working in).

 

 

Starting with X9, ALL multiaxis toolpaths should be working correctly relative to the WCS that your toolpath is set to.

 

 

Hope this helps!

 

 

Cheers,

FANTASTIC!!