Handling Tombstone programming

[Sticky]

Would it kill you to just explain what you claim or admit you were wrong? Discussing transforms in a MC hmc programming thread is hardly hi-jacking fwiw

[Bob W.]

Ok... Let me put this to bed for you.

I have a fixture. Said fixture is locating 26 pcs. This particular fixture is located on a unilock. The centerline of the unilock and face of the unilock is my sole offset for said fixture containing 26 different pieces. Now, this fixture goes through a checking station. Four random locations do not fit the original grid by .0003 or so...

Now, my entire rectangular transformations are off for these positions. Can I break into the transformation and relocate those four without creating separate transformations breaking my grid of 26 pieces into smaller, more localized transforms?

Now, because we do families, planning asks "can you put a pivot pin in 9 pieces for a shortage we have on the 128-169-4-3a parts?"

I can continue, but why?

Makes sense to me.

[Sticky]

Can you explain it to me then Bob?

 

The problem is, if his fixture is out, he is obviously doing something to correct it, as he should. Using a transform does not prevent you from fixing it. That is what I don't get. He is already using G10's to write the workoffsets, so that is getting him "close" (all of which you can do with transforms), then we are left to assume Zoober does some probing, and either establishes new offsets for the parts, or does G68 to align the program to the fixture. Either way, transform does NOT prevent you from accomplishing this.

[THEE THAINZ™]

Zoober, it's as clear as the muddy Willamette river to me only because I don't have a machine with a tomb stone. But I do program multiple parts and use the same reasoning some time you just need to change one but not all.

Far more flexibility and you can mod part features singularly if needed.      

[neurosis]

Would it kill you to just explain what you claim or admit you were wrong? Discussing transforms in a MC hmc programming thread is hardly hi-jacking fwiw

 

OMFG. I'm starting to understand why people get frustrated with you.    

 

When you are transforming you have to adhere to a grid.  You cant adjust each location individually.

 

When I was using Cimatron (sorry, this is just to make a point) you could lay out a point pattern and use that pattern to create your transforms. That meant that you could move each individual location by tenths if necessary.  You could even skip points in the pattern if for some reason the fixture were to become damaged. It was VERY flexible. We don't have that same flexibility in MC.

 

FWIW, my process is very similar to Bobs.  Although I am a clusterfsck when it comes to our HMC (which just happens to be an NH4000). Depending on the situation,  will program from C/L of rotation OR using a fixture location.  I have converted to mostly using macro's for rotations and part locations because it is super flexible and I can turn locations on and off with a switch.

 

This really is a tough subject with Mastercam.  There are several ways to accomplish this and none of them are very convenient.

[Newbeeee™]

OMFG. I'm starting to understand why people get frustrated with you.    

 

LOL.

I would have just 'liked' that reply but I'm all out of likes for my days quota.

Carry on!

 

BTW - neat question JP.

Although we don't have a hori, we do have 4ths on all our verticals so this is interesting.

[?Mark]

 "When using transform, if I end at B270, I want to pick up at B270 and work backwards, however, programming in 1 location, that is not easily done without a fair bit of hand editing."

 

Not sure if that's what you're after, but try "-1" in transform toolpath under "assign new" "increment" in "work offset numbering"

 

[?Mark]

BTW, I got a nice NH5000 post i can swap for Mazak QTN-200-II post (simple 2 axis)    

 

Or I'll just give it to you. PM me...

[Guest]

 "When using transform, if I end at B270, I want to pick up at B270 and work backwards, however, programming in 1 location, that is not easily done without a fair bit of hand editing."

 

Not sure if that's what you're after, but try "-1" in transform toolpath under "assign new" "increment" in "work offset numbering"

 

On a rotary, when programmming your seed part at B0, your transform will still see the B0 and want to start there.....

 

Doing it in a vise, you can work back and forth but the addition of the rotary component and -1 doesn't work

 

With a flat transform you can give it a starting distance and work back from there, no such control for rotary transforms

[Zoober]

Can you explain it to me then Bob?

 

The problem is, if his fixture is out, he is obviously doing something to correct it, as he should. Using a transform does not prevent you from fixing it. That is what I don't get. He is already using G10's to write the workoffsets, so that is getting him "close" (all of which you can do with transforms), then we are left to assume Zoober does some probing, and either establishes new offsets for the parts, or does G68 to align the program to the fixture. Either way, transform does NOT prevent you from accomplishing this.

You assume wrong. I don't probe. I know where everything lies from the check station (much more accurately than a probe).

I don't rotate (sine errors). I simply open the file, translate the offending geometry and repost the correct (to the tenth) program. Just as fast as changing any transform pattern. Faster than breaking up transforms. This also works after our scheduled fixture maintenance that may alter a part location due to a cleanup. There are some instances or machines we do probe. But not on our horizontals.

Even then, I don't transform. If, for no other reason than to make you wonder why.

[Sticky]

OMFG. I'm starting to understand why people get frustrated with you.    

 

When you are transforming you have to adhere to a grid.  You cant adjust each location individually.

 

When I was using Cimatron (sorry, this is just to make a point) you could lay out a point pattern and use that pattern to create your transforms. That meant that you could move each individual location by tenths if necessary.  You could even skip points in the pattern if for some reason the fixture were to become damaged. It was VERY flexible. We don't have that same flexibility in MC.

 

FWIW, my process is very similar to Bobs.  Although I am a clusterfsck when it comes to our HMC (which just happens to be an NH4000). Depending on the situation,  will program from C/L of rotation OR using a fixture location.  I have converted to mostly using macro's for rotations and part locations because it is super flexible and I can turn locations on and off with a switch.

 

This really is a tough subject with Mastercam.  There are several ways to accomplish this and none of them are very convenient.

 

LOL. How do you think I feel? I knew trying to explain hmc techniques to a bunch of guys who don't understand how basic drill canned cycles work (different thread) was going to be tough.

 

Yes I know how transform works, I also know how buggy it is, and how unflexible it is. All of this we went over on the first page. Zoober stated that transform not ACCURATE enough. That is what I wanted an answer for. I understand that fixtures or parts might be a bit out, that is why if our parts need to be more accurate then the fixturing in accuracies, we probe to re establish the offsets. It's a more automated way of doign what Zoober is doing. What it lacks is the ability to simple remove a couple of parts from the program. If I was in a situation where that was actually needed I would just probe to check to see if the parts were in the fixture or not, and then figure out a macro to handle my subs effectively.

 

I see he has now replied, and of course it's not an issue with the transforms accuracy it just that we would rather re enter his values into MC and repost.

 

LOL.

I would have just 'liked' that reply but I'm all out of likes for my days quota.

Carry on!

 

BTW - neat question JP.

Although we don't have a hori, we do have 4ths on all our verticals so this is interesting.

 

Come on, come out and say what's on your mind.

 

You assume wrong. I don't probe. I know where everything lies from the check station (much more accurately than a probe).

I don't rotate (sine errors). I simply open the file, translate the offending geometry and repost the correct (to the tenth) program. Just as fast as changing any transform pattern. Faster than breaking up transforms. This also works after our scheduled fixture maintenance that may alter a part location due to a cleanup. There are some instances or machines we do probe. But not on our horizontals.

Even then, I don't transform. If, for no other reason than to make you wonder why.

 

 

Hey! There we go   Thanks for answering the question. I'm surprised you want to be reposting and moving your part locations in MC in a production setting but if it works for you that great.

[Zoober]

That was the third time I said the same thing.

You see what you want for argument sake.

[Sticky]

It was the first time you said you would rather move the parts in MC than adjust them in process. While I certainly assumed you were doing it in process, in stead of stopping, moving your parts in MC and then reposting, it was only because you made such a big deal about no operator involvement and having the program control everything. Moving the parts in MC introduces a point in your process that you could make a mistake (accidentally shifting a part too much, too little, or not at all). I do it in process because I am human, and I do make mistakes. The probe on the other hand is not only less mistake prone then I am, it can do that work while I am at home sleeping, or arguing with you guys on emc

[Zoober]

It was the first time you said you would rather move the parts in MC than adjust them in process. While I certainly assumed you were doing it in process, in stead of stopping, moving your parts in MC and then reposting, it was only because you made such a big deal about no operator involvement and having the program control everything. Moving the parts in MC introduces a point in your process that you could make a mistake (accidentally shifting a part too much, too little, or not at all). I do it in process because I am human, and I do make mistakes......

See, that's where we differ...we don't do it in process. The accuracy is built into the process. It is done Before it hits machine, off line. We don't stop and move parts. Because we already knew they were off before we put them on the machine.

Mistakes are caught off line. Before they hit the machine. That's how we can make such a big deal about no operator involvement.

[Sticky]

Zoober, your system makes plenty of sense to me if it is a new part or something. Do you do this with all your repeat work too?

 

I'd be curious to learn how you came to this system.

 

I am full board with you on no operator involvement. That is why I don't really understand why you are measuring your fixtures and parts offline, and manually moving stuff in your cam system and then reposting.

 

After you modify your mc file, do you have some way of error checking your G10's to make sure they are correct before it goes in the machine? That is the reason I just in process probe, it will be dead nuts and I don't have to worry about fat fingering or making a mistake.

[Zoober]

Our repeat work runs as intended. There is no change. It goes on the machine and runs. G10's do not change. We verify on schedule, and if for some reason a unilock is not on location, we make it so. We do not change our G10's. That would invalidate other programs.

We would have to re run capability and validation checks if we did change. So changes, while they are made in the spirit of continuous improvement, must be justified.

We have development cycles for all parts. We have engineers that design, inspectors that check, and programmers that handle the machine side.

When we go production, it is a rock solid process.

Like I said earlier, we don't operate under job shop parameters.

We can't.

[Rocketmachinist]

I don't have a horizontal but am a little interested in seeing your guys thought process. Would anybody mind sharing a file to see what it takes for production machining like this?

[Sticky]

Our repeat work runs as intended. There is no change. It goes on the machine and runs. G10's do not change. We verify on schedule, and if for some reason a unilock is not on location, we make it so. We do not change our G10's. That would invalidate other programs.

We would have to re run capability and validation checks if we did change. So changes, while they are made in the spirit of continuous improvement, must be justified.

We have development cycles for all parts. We have engineers that design, inspectors that check, and programmers that handle the machine side.

When we go production, it is a rock solid process.

Like I said earlier, we don't operate under job shop parameters.

We can't.

 

What I was wondering though is if you are validating your repeat/production tooling in the same manner you were talking about in post #35. Surely a unilock can be out a couple of tenths or more, so I can only guess that would be inspecting them?

 

I don't have a horizontal but am a little interested in seeing your guys thought process. Would anybody mind sharing a file to see what it takes for production machining like this?

 

I was thinking of putting a file together to show how and why I do what I do for multiple part tombstones.

[Zoober]

We have ground masters for our unilocks we check them on a scheduled basis, or if there is a questionable location. That was the verify them statement above. For our fixturing, all fixtures are on a maintenance schedule as lean policies dictate. The schedule varies, based on quantities run, material abrasion and hardness, etc..

We try to control all aspects of a process. Obviously we miss on occasion, and that is where Kaisen events and or continuous improvement kicks in.

We just had a week long Kaisen for Swiss setup reduction and Muda.

[THEE THAINZ™]

Muda, waste not want not......

[crazy^millman]

We have ground masters for our unilocks we check them on a scheduled basis, or if there is a questionable location. That was the verify them statement above. For our fixturing, all fixtures are on a maintenance schedule as lean policies dictate. The schedule varies, based on quantities run, material abrasion and hardness, etc..

We try to control all aspects of a process. Obviously we miss on occasion, and that is where Kaisen events and or continuous improvement kicks in.

We just had a week long Kaisen for Swiss setup reduction and Muda.

 

Yes a process, a method along with checks and balances to go along with it. Insane I tell you just insane.

[Zoober]

Muda, waste not want not......

We found a lot of Muda. 1260 ft of travel, among others.

We were able to reduce Muda of all sorts over 60%.

We now have kitted setups, 3 more shadow boards, radius end the bar feeder blades (#1 in our Kaisen due to a injury), and great info for better setup books. We had 14 people in a combined Kaisen for setup reduction and autonomous maintenance.

[Zoober]

Yes a process, a method along with checks and balances to go along with it. Insane I tell you just insane.

You're just crazy!

[crazy^millman]

You're just crazy!

Shhhhhhh that is not something people are supposed to know.

[THEE THAINZ™]

Kaisen events can either be a pain or a great learning experience. From what I've seen from being involved in some you quickly find out who has their feet firmly planted in the past.

Sometimes you just have to ask why (also part of the process) to get the best answers.