Flowline hangs Mastercam 2017

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

Can anybody successfully create a Flowline toolpath in MC 2017?  My system just hangs whenever I try.

 

Have tried from a solid face and also from a surface.

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

Ugh, nevermind.  Now I can't get any of the surface toolpaths to work at all.  Going back to X9.

[Jayson Kramer]

I know I have a few times.

[Guest]

I've done a BUNCH of flowline 3D and 5-Axis. No troubles whatsoever that are not geometry related.

[crazy^millman]

Yes doing them right now and have been doing some morph between 2 curves.

[MIL-TFP-41]

Be glad you aren't using mill-turn. There is no "old school" toolpaths. No flowline, no blend

[crazy^millman]

Be glad you aren't using mill-turn. There is no "old school" toolpaths. No flowline, no blend

 

Yes but there is old school where you can create the geometry you want from other method and then drive that geometry using 3D contour.

 

Example. I was to do a flowline toolpath on a radius. I create a surface from the solid. I offset the surface my radius amount. I then create my curves flowline and drive it using 3D contour with no comp center of the tool. Other trick is to use a default mill to create the toolpaths you want.Save the geometry to a level and drive your 3D contour that way.

 

Simple toolpaths are sometimes the most effective in MT. I have created my share of geometry to make the tools cut like they use to with the old school toolpaths.

[Guest]

There's no school like the old school IMNSHO. I'm not suggest we go back to cranking handles but wireframe toolpaths and some of the old school paths like Flowline... there's nothing like the results they give/gave.

 

I'm a coons surface fan, probably 95% of the folks in here don't even know what that is and of the 5% left, probably only 2% can build one that is of moderate or greater complexity.

 

See, here;

 

http://forum.mastercam.com/Topic15202.aspx

[neurosis]

Coming from Cimatron in to Mastercam and having a soft spot for old Camax,  I always found the surfacing tools in Mastercam lacking.  That demo you posted was pretty good James.

[MIL-TFP-41]

Yes but there is old school where you can create the geometry you want from other method and then drive that geometry using 3D contour.

 

Example. I was to do a flowline toolpath on a radius. I create a surface from the solid. I offset the surface my radius amount. I then create my curves flowline and drive it using 3D contour with no comp center of the tool. Other trick is to use a default mill to create the toolpaths you want.Save the geometry to a level and drive your 3D contour that way.

 

Simple toolpaths are sometimes the most effective in MT. I have created my share of geometry to make the tools cut like they use to with the old school toolpaths.

Yes it can be done, and I had to resort to opening another session of mastercam, make the toolpath, save/import the geometry, toolpath as you outlined. However that is a ROYAL PITA compared to just picking the surface & be done. Leaving those paths out of mill-turn is a huge mistake IMO. Blend and Flowline are among the most used surfacing toolpaths for me.

[Guest]

Coming from Cimatron in to Mastercam and having a soft spot for old Camax,  I always found the surfacing tools in Mastercam lacking.  That demo you posted was pretty good James.

 

Neurosis, I posted a video of how to create the coons patch surface (with audio explanations) and a part file with BOTH multiple surface patches and the single patch using flow 5-Axis  apparently ignore surface normal is not working on 2017... going to have to submit that have comp available (control, computer or wear). Since I use CAMplete for my 5-Axis Post Processor, I get G41.2/G42.2 output with wear selected. If they get rid of those older 5-Axis paths (I have not heard that they are so no need to hit the panic button just yet), that's going to cause some real problems should they go down that road.

[Mick]

Yes it can be done, and I had to resort to opening another session of mastercam, make the toolpath, save/import the geometry, toolpath as you outlined. However that is a ROYAL PITA compared to just picking the surface & be done. Leaving those paths out of mill-turn is a huge mistake IMO. Blend and Flowline are among the most used surfacing toolpaths for me.

 

Flowline has got me out of the !@#$% plenty of times. Sure, it is an old toolpath, but some of those old toolpaths have their place. Even 2D and 3D Swept are useful (And I'm one of those 2% that can do coons patches, including tricky ones).

 

Maybe Flowline etc being left out of MT is writing on the wall...

[Newbeeee™]

 

 

Maybe Flowline etc being left out of MT is writing on the wall...

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Flowline is my go-to toolpath.

[Guest]

Flowline saves my @$$ when I need a consistent scallop height on shapes. Blend is good but it's still not Flowline. Besides, If they take away Flowline then I have no reason to be a Coons Surface snob anymore. :

[jeff]

I love flowline.

Now if they will just fix the bug with "output 3D arcs" on that toolpath I'd be all set.

[crazy^millman]

Maybe Flowline etc being left out of MT is writing on the wall...

 

It really makes using MT difficult at times not having it. Morph between 2 curves is about the only thing close to it.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I'm a 2%er!

 

I could possibly understand dropping the old-school surface paths IF AND ONLY IF the surface high speed paths could be set to not roll over edges.  I have never in my 20 years of programming wanted the path to roll over the outside edges.  The wireframe paths should never be let go though, since they make by far the cleanest output possible.  They're often more work, but it's more than worth it when you need that clean output.

[Newbeeee™]

I'm a 2%er!

 

I could possibly understand dropping the old-school surface paths IF AND ONLY IF the surface high speed paths could be set to not roll over edges.  I have never in my 20 years of programming wanted the path to roll over the outside edges.  The wireframe paths should never be let go though, since they make by far the cleanest output possible.  They're often more work, but it's more than worth it when you need that clean output.

I have never understood this roll over edges thing?

Why would you need it and where would you use it?

[Guest]

THe ONLY reason I could see using it would be for a nice edge break on the exterior of a part if you did not want to change tools and you were surface machining a top surface that was flat. I never do that either though. I use Chamfer mills or do swept 2D or Flowline...

[crazy^millman]

I'm a 2%er!

 

I could possibly understand dropping the old-school surface paths IF AND ONLY IF the surface high speed paths could be set to not roll over edges.  I have never in my 20 years of programming wanted the path to roll over the outside edges.  The wireframe paths should never be let go though, since they make by far the cleanest output possible.  They're often more work, but it's more than worth it when you need that clean output.

 

I would be happy if check surface were treated like check surfaces in the other parts of the software. 5 Axis and Old school Surfacing Toolpaths avoid them, but the HST ones still treat them as drive surfaces. Please quit telling me that containment boundaries are my friend either for using these toolpaths.

[crazy^millman]

THe ONLY reason I could see using it would be for a nice edge break on the exterior of a part if you did not want to change tools and you were surface machining a top surface that was flat. I never do that either though. I use Chamfer mills or do swept 2D or Flowline...

 

Look at Parallel to Surface been doing some trick deburring using that for some time.

 

.01 edge break with a 1/4 ball endmill is a .0171 Radius on the sharp edge. Then 1 as the number to use and you have a very nice edge break right up to a surface with the ability to go full 5 Axis if wanted and check surfaces with different amounts.

[Mick]

I'm a 2%er!

 

I could possibly understand dropping the old-school surface paths IF AND ONLY IF the surface high speed paths could be set to not roll over edges.  I have never in my 20 years of programming wanted the path to roll over the outside edges.  The wireframe paths should never be let go though, since they make by far the cleanest output possible.  They're often more work, but it's more than worth it when you need that clean output.

 

I complained about this a number of times... fell on deaf ears. The only real answer I got was "create a containment boundary" or "use check surfaces". Sometimes that isn't feasible/achievable. Sometimes I just want the surface alone to control the tool. But, again, they didn't listen. Still, we got a nice new interface.... twice...

[Mick]

THe ONLY reason I could see using it would be for a nice edge break on the exterior of a part if you did not want to change tools and you were surface machining a top surface that was flat. I never do that either though. I use Chamfer mills or do swept 2D or Flowline...

 

But roll over edges, does't actually break the edge. It basically pivots the tool at the surface edge, much like roll tool around corner in 2D contour. Really, the function is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle..... Or a bowler hat with sleeves

[Newbeeee™]

But roll over edges, does't actually break the edge. It basically pivots the tool at the surface edge, much like roll tool around corner in 2D contour. Really, the function is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle..... Or a bowler hat with sleeves

How about a chocolate fire guard?

mmmmmmmm chocolate....

[jlw™]

The check surface is a big deal to me coming from other softwares that respect check surfaces.

 

I have become and expert at creating containment, stock models and extra control surfaces.

 

Now if I could get surface fin contour to apply my arc in/out while respecting containment...