Why does simulation hate me?

[mmoya]

I've been programming in Mastercam for about 2 years now, but I've never liked the simulation feature that comes with mastercam. I've always had so many issues with it I try not to even use it.

 

There have been instances where the sim is 200% fine only to have the machine nearly crash, or on the other hand the sim is just completely wild with the spindle halfway through my workpiece but the g-code posts correctly. So I just baby the machine for the first run and end up having to go back and fourth from the machine to my workstation while I try to iron out my program...

 

I just finished a 4th axis part and went to sim it, and when I view it with the machine housing it looks like this:

 

What gives?? I've tried to edit the machine settings in Mastercam and in the simulation windows but haven't had any luck.

Am I the only one? I'd really like to get this thing to work correctly...

[So not a Guru]

You're not the only one, I fought with it for a couple of months. Then I just gave up. Now i merge models of my vises, fixtures & the machine's table. Then I run backplot or verify so that I can see for sure whether or not the path is safe. It's a lot of extra work, but it's better than crashing.

[jlw™]

^^^ this is what I do.

 

I even have models of my actual machines that I will occassionally create tool models and see exactly where it's going.

[mmoya]

Hmm. Seems like a good workaround, but wouldn't that make the MCX files really heavy with all those solids in there? That also wouldn't show me any kind of "as-cut" model either, which is something I like to see.

Ideally, I'd get Vericut, but my company doesn't want to spend that kind of money right now.

 

I have models for our vices and table, but not for the Trunnion, and definitely not a machine model. I call my reseller every now and then for machine models but HAAS has yet to release a VF-4 model.

[jlw™]

I save my stl from Verify which shows as cut even from custom tools so it's more accurate imo.

 

Can't you call Haas directly and get models for anything they make?

 

I make my own when I can't get them. I frequently sneak within 0.05in of fixtures. That's my comfort limit though.

[Müřlıń®]

Hmm. Seems like a good workaround, but wouldn't that make the MCX files really heavy with all those solids in there? That also wouldn't show me any kind of "as-cut" model either, which is something I like to see.

Ideally, I'd get Vericut, but my company doesn't want to spend that kind of money right now.

 

I have models for our vices and table, but not for the Trunnion, and definitely not a machine model. I call my reseller every now and then for machine models but HAAS has yet to release a VF-4 model.

We live in the Terabyte & SSD HDD age...

 

There are free trunnion models on grab cad for HAAS...

[mmoya]

We live in the Terabyte & SSD HDD age...

 

There are free trunnion models on grab cad for HAAS...

 

Yeah I suppose you're right with the storage thing... But GrabCAD doesn't have our machines

 

 

Can't you call Haas directly and get models for anything they make?

 

I tried before and was told that machine models are only available through a reseller. Called my reseller and they said HAAS hasn't released them yet...

[gms1]

Hmm. Seems like a good workaround, but wouldn't that make the MCX files really heavy with all those solids in there? That also wouldn't show me any kind of "as-cut" model either, which is something I like to see.

Ideally, I'd get Vericut, but my company doesn't want to spend that kind of money right now.

 

I have models for our vices and table, but not for the Trunnion, and definitely not a machine model. I call my reseller every now and then for machine models but HAAS has yet to release a VF-4 model.

 

I do put all my models in my files because I also make setup sheets and tool lists using pretty pictures of stuff. Yeah, it does get a lot bigger and slower but I need to challenge the IT guy occasionally

[So not a Guru]

I save my stl from Verify which shows as cut even from custom tools so it's more accurate imo.

 

Can't you call Haas directly and get models for anything they make?

 

I make my own when I can't get them. I frequently sneak within 0.05in of fixtures. That's my comfort limit though.

C'mon, 0.001" is as good as a mile.

[mmoya]

Welp hopefully I can get my hands on some machine models so i can at least do some manual collision checking.

HOWEVER- it still doesn't solve the issue in my first post...

 

Has anyone been able to fix it? For the amount of money that we pay for Mastercam you'd think they would give us a decently working simulator...................

[Mick]

I save my stl from Verify which shows as cut even from custom tools so it's more accurate imo.

 

Can't you call Haas directly and get models for anything they make?

 

I make my own when I can't get them. I frequently sneak within 0.05in of fixtures. That's my comfort limit though.

 

Using Vericut, I sneak within .02in (.5mm) regularly. Often with toolholders down inside cavities.

 

Some (but not many) machine tool builders will give you the models, but others want to charge. Mori Seiki's prices were eye watering. So much so, that I modelled the machine (key components only) from scratch.

[crazy^millman]

Shoot me an email I have a VF4 Model.

[crazy^millman]

I will throw this out here if you go to a 3rd party post company that understand machine sim like Postability they can give you a post that will work closely with your posted code to show a very good picture of what is going on.

[AMCNitro]

I downloaded a zip file(from EMC) a few months back with machine models, I looked at it quickly, but I do remember it had a Haas model, dont remember which one.  The zip also had a bunch of other stuff.  Ill find it and pot it later tonight.

[Colin Gilchrist]

Have you used the Simulation Setup? It looks like you have a XYZ translation on your workpiece. This is useful for machines where zero in Machine Sim is the table, but you want to run in a vise. You can translate in Z to mimic the effect of using a vise.

 

Looks like you need only -X translation, to place the part to the left of the origin, on that particular machine. 

[mikenaturalice]

Have you used the Simulation Setup? It looks like you have a XYZ translation on your workpiece. This is useful for machines where zero in Machine Sim is the table, but you want to run in a vise. You can translate in Z to mimic the effect of using a vise.

 

Looks like you need only -X translation, to place the part to the left of the origin, on that particular machine. 

That is exactly what I was thinking. Go to the simulation setup and setup your machine. There is a translation page to re-assign where xyz is related to the part. 

[mmoya]

Using Vericut, I sneak within .02in (.5mm) regularly. Often with toolholders down inside cavities.

 

Some (but not many) machine tool builders will give you the models, but others want to charge. Mori Seiki's prices were eye watering. So much so, that I modelled the machine (key components only) from scratch.

 

I think I'll call HAAS again to see what they say. I know they give them out for free as long as I'm a CAM user, but when they gave me the machine model for our ST-30 last December they said that the VF-4 model "wasn't released yet" and to check back later.

 

Shoot me an email I have a VF4 Model.

 

 

That is exactly what I was thinking. Go to the simulation setup and setup your machine. There is a translation page to re-assign where xyz is related to the part. 

 

I've played around with that, but it seems like the zero in the machine sim is at some obscure location, so I end up punching in different numbers through trial & error trying to get it located correctly in the sim.

When I run it in 3-axis mode the WCS/TP zero is embedded somewhere inside the machine table, and in 4-axis the zero is inside the trunnion, and way off center, as you can see in the screenshot.

 

What about the Post Settings and Machine Definition tabs? There's gotta be some configuration setting somewhere besides the workpiece translation.

[mikenaturalice]

I'm not sure about where machine zero is on yours. I think it might be where the model was 'built' so it is possible the zero is at one corner of the table? Mine is easy, UMC-750 machine zero is top of table surface at the center. So my transforms are only need in Z most of the time. Occasionally with a bigger part that the zero may not be center of table I will have an X or Y value, but its rare. I opened my generic 4axis machine for simulation and mine is also not on center in Y, but Z appears to be correct, then would need to put an X offset according to where you are locating the stock. Y appears to be about 2" offset, no idea why. Sorry, don't know anything about editing the machine for simulation...

[Müřlıń®]

I think I'll call HAAS again to see what they say. I know they give them out for free as long as I'm a CAM user, but when they gave me the machine model for our ST-30 last December they said that the VF-4 model "wasn't released yet" and to check back later.

 

 

 

 

I've played around with that, but it seems like the zero in the machine sim is at some obscure location, so I end up punching in different numbers through trial & error trying to get it located correctly in the sim.

When I run it in 3-axis mode the WCS/TP zero is embedded somewhere inside the machine table, and in 4-axis the zero is inside the trunnion, and way off center, as you can see in the screenshot.

 

What about the Post Settings and Machine Definition tabs? There's gotta be some configuration setting somewhere besides the workpiece translation.

 

When you build your model for the machine sim, the zero needs to be in the correct location....sounds like you need to assemble all the STLs in the machine sim and move them to the

correct zero.

 

You might have to convert the table to a solid so you can get a good point to move everything to if the model was built wrong.

 

After you move all the assembled components,  just put them back in the machine sim like they were and it should work.  Providing that was what the problem was.