Morph path is jagged

[huskermcdoogle]

Howdy,

I have run into many cases when I get these results with morph.  Any idea what I can do to smooth this out?  Slows the machine down too much. It happens here that I am trying to run a square end on the leading edge.  If I run on center it isn't as bad if not completely corrected in most cases.  In wood, running on leading edge around something like this will create much better results.  I would imagine in ally or something would be similar.

Anyway, pics and file attached. 

Husker

 

Sample_Morph.mcam

[mayday]

Take a look at your edge curves if thats what your using. If the splines are a little rough it will cause the tool path to do the same

[huskermcdoogle]

I am using  surfaces as edge curves are worse, and cause other problems when wrapping around.

[crazy^millman]

Remember your in metric why do you need to hold a 1 micron tolerance on the cuts in wood? Kick it up to 25 or maybe 100 microns and see the difference. I went up to .1mm and it was much smoother motion in one area, but worse in others. Not sure that toolpath will be the best choice. Is see why you want to use it for the leading edge of the tool capability it gives you, but might look at 5 Axis Flowline in this case and sue spiral like you did.
Sometimes with lines you can force the tool to do the same thing.

[crazy^millman]

I would refit those splines and try to smooth them out. I really think you are working against yourself here a little. I also tried to make a new net surface and had one that looked really nice, but then Mastercam locked up on me and I could not save the file.

[Aaron Eberhard]

This is a great example of the difference between what you tell the toolpath to do and what you want the toolpath to do

Before I get into what's happening, I'll echo that it's kind if silly to run a .001mm tolerance on a surface that has obvious defects:

With that being said, the problem actually makes more sense if we loosen up the tolerance a bit anyway.  I'm going to turn off roughing and set the tolerance to the default .025 for clarity:

There we go.   Now, what can we tell from the large stepping here?  This is a side effect of telling the toolpath that it HAS to cut with the front edge of the tool while being absolutely perpendicular to the surface at each vector.  What's happening here is because of the input shape, it has to slide left/right as it cuts around, which means that you have some correction that has to happen as your tool contact point shifts. 

And, because I always love to state the obvious when troubleshooting, we can tell that it's definitely related to this because if you turn off the Tool Axis Control > Run Tool At Front and just be perpendicular to the surface the toolpath looks fine (but then is cutting at the center/tip, not optimal).   But it's always important to isolate the cause

Now, onto the solution.  There's a few things we can do to remedy this such as turning off force front and putting a bit of lead on the tool, but to retain the optimal cutting result, front cutting, we're going to have to change how we're getting the tool axis control from the surface.  Currently it's set to be absolutely perpendicular to the surface at every vector.  There's no flexibility if the surface changes, shifts, curves, has rips/tears/etc.    The old axiom of "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" comes to mind.. 

If you set the surface control to Surface with Tilt, we start get some options about how firmly it has to follow the surface shape.  In fact, one of things you can do is to choose to take the entire contour into account instead of thinking of each vector as an individual point.  Once you set that, a whole 'nother set of options opens up as far as how to deal with axial changes within each contour:

For this particular example, either general Smooth or more localized Smooth by two vectors will fit the bill.  Here's smooth by two vectors:

Hope this helps!

 

Edit: Apparently pasting images into the response doesn't actually upload them like it appears it will..

[crazy^millman]

Aaron, prefect thanks I learned something.

[huskermcdoogle]

Aaron, thanks for the informative reply.

So I played with it a bit, and smooth ended up being the ticket, two vectors still had a little zig at the entrance location (gap, not sure where that gap came from  ).  I have played with these options a little before, but I get so darned tunnel visioned sometimes.  Sometimes it is great sometimes it isn't.  I was fighting one earler tonight that happened to be due to tangency issues with my surfaces,  I need to learn more about creating good tangent blends and patches between surfaces.  Not having much luck lately.  Back to seldomworks for patch ad blend geo.

 

 

 

 

[So not a Guru]

16 hours ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

If you set the surface control to Surface with Tilt,

Why don't I have "Surface with Tilt" as an option?

[Aaron Eberhard]

huskermcdoogle - Understandable..  And this is a prime example of where the "intuitive" thing isn't exactly the output that you want. "I just want this to tilt from the surface!"  If you were being accurate/honest/not-just-flying-through-the-interface it would be more of a "Well, not REALLY from the surface, like, from the surface but ignoring the parts/motion of the surface that I don't like!"  So when it doesn't match your preconceived mental model, that's where the confusion sets in. 

The really annoying times are when half of the toolpath you want result X, but that's mutually exclusive with the other half for some reason..

So Not a Guru - Because you're using an older version of the software

For 2018, we made some minor changes to try to clean up the verbiage/be a bit to be more descriptive:

 

Ron - Always a pleasure to be of service *hat tip*

[So not a Guru]

42 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

For 2018, we made some minor changes to try to clean up the verbiage/be a bit to be more descriptive:

I thought that might be the case, so the Surface with lead/lag is what I selected.

Thanks