X9 Curve 5 Axis Problem

[Jim at Gentex]

Hey all,

I just encountered a disturbing issue with a curve 5 axis toolpath in X9.

 

I had a model of a previously made part with some toolpaths in X8 that I wanted to migrate to X9.

So I opened the X8 file in X9 and saved it as a *.mcx-9.

So far so good.

 

I needed to make a change to the cutter diameter offset to accommodate a slightly smaller diameter cutter, so I did that and regenerated and reposted the toolpath in X9.

For some strange reason, the posted file in X9 completely ignored the lead-in / lead-out parameters, causing the tool to plunge into the part instead of approaching on the lead-in vector.

 

Has anyone seen anything like this before?

I need to get this job done, so I am just going to go back to the original *.mcx-8 file in X8 and make the change there and repost to see if the error repeats. 

 

Any suggestions as to how or why this happened?

 

Thanks.

[Rstewart]

Did you try making a new toolpath with the changes implemented?  I've seen things like this happen when op's are created in earlier versions and then merged.

[Jim at Gentex]

I wanted to avoid reselecting the geometry because it was kind of a pain the first time since some of it is a bit tricky with lots of branch points.

All I did was change the diameter offset, regen, and repost.

 

I guess I could try reselecting the geometry, but I am wondering what that would have to do with lead-in / lead-out parameters.

 

I know it's tough to give help without seeing the file, but it's proprietary stuff so I can't post it here.

[crazy^millman]

Jim I have not had repeat work to see if this happens. Pretty much what I have been doing for the last 3 years is all new work and once done is it given to a customer. I would see if you can shoot the file to QC and have them pick it a part to see what is going on.

[Jim at Gentex]

Jim I have not had repeat work to see if this happens. Pretty much what I have been doing for the last 3 years is all new work and once done is it given to a customer. I would see if you can shoot the file to QC and have them pick it a part to see what is going on.

 

Thanks, Ron.

 

I can send it to the tech support guys at my reseller to see what they can do first, then they can kick it up the chain if necessary.

 

This just surprised the heck out of me because we have been running this same job since X3 and I have always followed the exact same procedure when updating the files to a newer version.

 

The only variable that ever changes is the tool diameter because we use reground cutters for this particular application.

This is the first time I have had an issue like this come up.

[Jim at Gentex]

Update:

 

I still have X8 installed on this workstation so I went back and opened the *.mcx-8 file in X8.

I changed the diameter offset to the new value, regenerated the toolpath, and reposted with the X8 definition files and post.

 

The lead-in / lead-out moves are as they should be.

I will use this program for now, but would still like to know why it got boogered up in X9.

 

I'm guessing we are probably closer to the newest Mastercam release, so I doubt if X9 issues will be as pressing to try to fix.

However, if something can be learned from this going forward it may help.

[crazy^millman]

Update:

 

I still have X8 installed on this workstation so I went back and opened the *.mcx-8 file in X8.

I changed the diameter offset to the new value, regenerated the toolpath, and reposted with the X8 definition files and post.

 

The lead-in / lead-out moves are as they should be.

I will use this program for now, but would still like to know why it got boogered up in X9.

 

I'm guessing we are probably closer to the newest Mastercam release, so I doubt if X9 issues will be as pressing to try to fix.

However, if something can be learned from this going forward it may help.

 

They want these types of files. When I worked for Verisurf the odd files were always ones the developers wanted. I try to send them in every time I run into them. We helped track down a pretty nasty one with one such file. Hate finding them, but glad to help eliminate them. Better the software gets the easier our jobs are.

[gcode]

I'm guessing we are probably closer to the newest Mastercam release, so I doubt if X9 issues will be as pressing to try to fix.

However, if something can be learned from this going forward it may help.

 

It would be interesting to see if this problem occurs in MC2017...

 

on a side  note...

did you try changing your leadin/out values to see if that had any effect

[Jim at Gentex]

 

on a side  note...

did you try changing your leadin/out values to see if that had any effect

 

No I didn't only because I wanted to verify they were the same in the X8 file, which they were.

I posted the X8 file and ran the part yesterday because I needed to get the job done.

 

I will try changing the values today and repost the toolpath again to see if they stick.

[Jim at Gentex]

Update:

 

OK so I went back and increased the lead-in and lead-out values.

Upon closer inspection it is only the lead-in that is acting weird.

Changing the values has no effect.

It doesn't ignore it as I had originally thought, but it is putting an extra little lateral move in there that should not be there, which is what is causing the tool to plunge into the part.

Sorry I can't post it here because it is difficult to accurately describe what is happening.

 

I will try to kick the file to my reseller today and they can forward it to the QC folks.

(I am assuming our NDA with our reseller extends to CNC Software but I need to double check that.)

 

Thanks all for the input.

The part is finished and passed inspection, so from that perspective we are good to go.

However there is still no explanation as to why it acted that way to begin with.

Hopefully the QC folks can poke around in the guts of the file a bit and find a solution. 

[?Mark]

"Has anyone seen anything like this before?"

 

+1 to Rsteward

 

Yes.

Copying/merging most 5axis toolpaths has been giving me similar problems. Seems that there is some "residual" info within them, that when I edit those merged/copied paths the effect is not what normally would happen.

I still do try to do that to save time, but when I see that my edits/changes don't work I will immediately start the new 5axis toolpath from scratch.

[Jim at Gentex]

Yes, that is true when merging or copying ops.

I have seen issues in the past when doing that.

 

But just to be clear, in this case I didn't merge or copy any ops.

I opened an older X8 file in X9 and saved it as a *.mcx-9.

I changed the cutter diameter offset in the X9 file and regenerated and reposted.

After that the lead-in was boogered up to where the tool would have gouged into the part.

 

I had done this procedure before all the way back to X3 but never had an issue until now.

Maybe saving it in the X9 format messed it up since the ops were created in X8, but if that is what happened I can say for sure that it has never happened to me before.

 

I am also going to try rewriting the ops from scratch which I am 99.9% sure will eliminate the problem.

[gcode]

An experiment

Make a fresh tool with the new smaller diameter

Try that in your X9 file

[Jim at Gentex]

Good idea there too.

 

Unfortunately the job is finished so I had to move on to the next project.

I have some notes jotted down in case I get some time to mess with it again.

We haven't had many orders recently for this particular part, but I do want to have the issue resolved for next time. 

 

Thanks again all for your input.