How many use check surfaces in HST toolpaths?

[crazy^millman]

We have a project we are working on and the using of check surfaces for some of the HST toolpaths was needed. I have used them here and there, but was wondering how many people are using them for HST toolpaths? How many people even know you can use them? I know it can be misleading that you cannot use them since they are greyed out when 1st picking geometry, but after you have picked everything for the operation you can pick check surfaces through the 1st page on the toolpath type.

 

These hidden gems as I call them are all throughout Mastercam. I am always learning new and different ways to do things and if this topic points others in a better direction great. If I am crazy for using them I am good with that, but was wondering what others thoughts on this might be.

 

 

[Fred @ Slate Industries]

I use them all the time

Check surfaces the ultimate "Dont touch this area" !!

Early releases of X didnt offer them for a while if l recall ?

[crazy^millman]

I use them all the time

Check surfaces the ultimate "Dont touch this area" !!

Early releases of X didnt offer them for a while if l recall ?

 

I see it the same way I will make offset surfaces of features I want the toolpaths to stay away from. When using a Raptor System for holding parts I make surfaces from my Raptor offset them .100 and then use them as check surfaces. Never have to worry about hitting my clamping system and done.

[Thee Rickster ™]

i do, now that you can leave stock on the check surfaces.

on specific paths that I am blending up to adjacent drafted walls and such

 

i know you like pics, so here is a for instance

 

The white surface need to be polish free for the tolerance

so I boundary with a raster path and 'check' the 1 deg vertical walls

 

BTW I modeled this component with spaceclaim from a print

 

.

[LA CAMmer]

I use them occasionally.  Sometimes I create a quick check surface when a toolpath doesn't behave the way I want, or use check surfaces when I don't want or need to chain a complex containment region.  It's nice to be able to use them when you need them.

[BenK]

I use them all the time. I would like to see them add the stock to leave control in opti toolpaths so you don't have to offset the surfaces.

[Oppiz]

I use them often. Sometimes I use them to avoid an area (when I'm too lazy to make a boundary)

[SpacePilotPro]

I have found using the "use holder for gouge checking" option to be quite useful on a couple occasions where I had the tool and holder down inside a cavity. It kind of works the same as check surface.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I use them frequently.  I manually offset surfaces different amounts so I can stay away different distances, and will extend runner surfaces out the end of a block so the tool won't wrap around.

[cincy k]

I use them pretty often. I hated when they weren't available in the early releases!!!

 

Think there will ever be the day where you can leave different amounts of stock on different check surfaces? I've seen this in Powermill. Essentially there are groups inside the check surfaces where you can leave varying amounts of stock. It's setup kind of like a spreadsheet or looks similar to the level manager. Pretty sweet feature I thought. 

[Jayson Kramer]

Use them often here to.

[crazy^millman]

I use them pretty often. I hated when they weren't available in the early releases!!!

 

Think there will ever be the day where you can leave different amounts of stock on different check surfaces? I've seen this in Powermill. Essentially there are groups inside the check surfaces where you can leave varying amounts of stock. It's setup kind of like a spreadsheet or looks similar to the level manager. Pretty sweet feature I thought. 

 

That sounds pretty neat. I just use offset surfaces as different amounts as my poor mans method to get it done.

[BenK]

That sounds pretty neat. I just use offset surfaces as different amounts as my poor mans method to get it done.

 

Same here. Would be a nice feature to have though.

[Müřlıń®]

I love check surfaces...sometimes they do funky things to tool paths but not all the time...

 

When I try to use them on optirest though they wont let me...

[Thad]

Back in V9, using check surfaces added huge amounts of time to toolpath calculation so I quit using them and haven't looked back. Has that changed any over the years? Using drive surfaces and boundaries here.

[crazy^millman]

I love check surfaces...sometimes they do funky things to tool paths but not all the time...

 

When I try to use them on optirest though they wont let me...

 

Did you try making surfaces and using them as the check surfaces, verses trying to use surfaces from the model you may have picked for the operation?

 

 

Back in V9, using check surfaces added huge amounts of time to toolpath calculation so I quit using them and haven't looked back. Has that changed any over the years? Using drive surfaces and boundaries here.

 

I think it faster, but the problem is 3D shapes and some of the HST toolpaths don't respect the boundaries, but they will respect a check surface. Again a little different thought is some areas you might want to leave .02 and other areas you might want to leave .100 and by using offset surfaces of those areas you can do that.

[slyym]

I'm doing an Opticore toolpath right now and when I select check surfaces it tells me "check surfaces will be treated as drive surfaces".  Do check surfaces not work with Opticore? 

[slyym]

Can one of you guys take a look at this real quick? Its just a simple radius surface nothing special. Just haven't used the HST toolpaths a whole lot. Just operation 21 the opticore.

BLOCK.Z2G

[crazy^millman]

I'm doing an Opticore toolpath right now and when I select check surfaces it tells me "check surfaces will be treated as drive surfaces".  Do check surfaces not work with Opticore? 

 

That is not an error that is just telling you they will be treated as such and with the correct boundary in place all should be good. Might think about extending your RED surface past your boundary and see how much different that toolpath will process.

 

I added the lite blue surfaces as check surfaces and redid the toolpath. I did add depth limits to the toolpath. I changed the Clearance Plane to .25. I also like to use machine Entire Pass verses the Minimize Trimming. I also changed the Line/Arc Filtering settings to use Arc in G17,G18,G19. It reduced the NCI from 7796.6K to 1066.5K.

 

HTH

[crazy^millman]

Here is a dropbox link for your file. I will leave it up for ten days and then remove it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rlsxozblihod3is/BLOCK.MCX-7?dl=0

 

HTH

[Brian B 74]

Boundaries and drive surfaces here.  Didn't have much luck back in the V9 days so I have become accustomed to using custom solid models with faces offset in areas where I want to leave stock.

[slyym]

Here is a dropbox link for your file. I will leave it up for ten days and then remove it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rlsxozblihod3is/BLOCK.MCX-7?dl=0

 

HTH

Thanks Ron. Yea didn't really like how it looked like it was cutting the sides. Always thought that message meant check surfaces didn't work. I just need to use these paths more.

[crazy^millman]

Thanks Ron. Yea didn't really like how it looked like it was cutting the sides. Always thought that message meant check surfaces didn't work. I just need to use these paths more.

 

Glad to help and yes some of the messages in these toolpaths could be worded different. I am crazy enough to see what happens. It fails I learned something, but if it work and gives me results I wanted all along then I ignore and get the job done the way I want it done.