Module works toolpaths

[So not a Guru]

Is anyone aware of advanced training available for the newer Module Works multi-axis toolpaths?

[huskermcdoogle]

I was thinking Colin was going to have one soon through eapprentice but don't see it on the site.  

In the mean time, if you have something in particular you are struggling with, I and others on here be glad to help you out.  I don't know much about the back-end of what makes those paths tick, but I can certainly help point you in the right direction.

[Colin Gilchrist]

The training I developed for the Advanced 5 Axis Toolpaths was based on the information I learned in their Help File. Try going through the pages in that file and reading about how to apply the Cut Pattern (how the tool moves across the geo/stock), and the Tool Axis (initial orientation of the tool).

The real "secret" in driving any of the 5X paths is to simplfy the "input" geometry. I often build simple curved or rectangular surfaces beneath the geometry I'm cutting.

The "collision control" can be used in several ways. Yes, it can be used to "tilt" the tool to avoid a collision, but it is also used for "compensation surfaces". This is where you'vegot complex geometry that you are ultimately cutting. You do this by "retracting the Tool Axis" in Collision Control.

The other place people get hung up is with the Triangle Mesh tool paths. These are 3 Axis paths. That is their method for generating a path. They are best used as 3X paths, with some limited options for re-linking. Don't try and treat them as full 5X. There are, however, some great things coming for the Geodesic path. Not sure when that is getting integrated. Maybe 2019? The new changes allow unlimited guide curves to influence the Cut Pattern, and automatic positioning of the tool axis.

[huskermcdoogle]

Colin said it well.

4 minutes ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

The real "secret" in driving any of the 5X paths is to simplfy the "input" geometry.

I can't stress this any more, any time I am having trouble getting a path to cooperate it is due to poor driving "pattern" geo...  Simplify that and voila it works, sometimes with very little deviation from the original surface, which you can then just collision control back to the original surface, but with the motion you were looking for.

[So not a Guru]

     Yeah,  most of the time that I'm struggling with one of these paths, is when I have some crappy customer model. I have to create geometry a lot to get the paths to work, I thought that was due to my lack of understanding of the paths themselves. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, So not a Guru said:

I have some crappy customer model.

Garbage in, garbage out

[So not a Guru]

1 minute ago, JParis said:

Garbage in, garbage out

Crap happens

[Guest]

1 minute ago, So not a Guru said:

Crap happens

That's what I keep telling them

[Colin Gilchrist]

I find myself defaulting to a couple strategies:

• Parallel - with a boundary for containment, or another collision control method
• Morph between 2 Curves - Gives you a "blend" style path, just need to build "drive curves"
• Use either "old school" path (flowline or Surface Finish Contour) to get the "motion" I want - then "convert 3X to 5X", to get Tool Axis Control, Tool Axis Tilting, and extra "collision control" and Linking strategies.

[huskermcdoogle]

I have been finding lately that when using parallel and morph, the new common direction checkbox (tool axis control page) in 2018 to be hugely helpful in quickly making smooth paths with the tool axis intent you generally were looking for without much work put into it.

[dingo780]

20 hours ago, So not a Guru said:

     Yeah,  most of the time that I'm struggling with one of these paths, is when I have some crappy customer model. I have to create geometry a lot to get the paths to work, I thought that was due to my lack of understanding of the paths themselves. 

Great thread. I've had those moments as well where I start wondering if I'm just a schmuck who doesn't quite understand how to use these toolpaths correctly. Just have to remind myself of the k.i.s.s. rule every once in a while.

[Aaron Eberhard]

To add on to that a bit, I always teach people to focus ONLY on the cut pattern when first trying to make a toolpath.  Turn off any collision control you have and let the tool axis control be "normal to surface."   If you can't get the blue toolpath lines to look like what you want now, adding in tool axis manipulation or collision control isn't going to help you, it's only going to make things worse.

[Guest]

Aaron, do you know what would be helpful, perhaps you have access to it and can share.....the Moduleworks help file..

There is an older version floating around here but it's several versions old....a newer version would, I think be of great assistance to many of us...

[huskermcdoogle]

1 minute ago, JParis said:

Aaron, do you know what would be helpful, perhaps you have access to it and can share.....the Moduleworks help file..

There is an older version floating around here but it's several versions old....a newer version would, I think be of great assistance to many of us...

To add to this, it would also be nice to know what release of MW the current release of mastercam has incorporated into it.  It's probably not that simple, but it sometimes would be nice to know when we are getting some of the new features that MW puts out.

[Colin Gilchrist]

4 minutes ago, huskermcdoogle said:

To add to this, it would also be nice to know what release of MW the current release of mastercam has incorporated into it.  It's probably not that simple, but it sometimes would be nice to know when we are getting some of the new features that MW puts out.

The real issue is that just because "ModuleWorks has released it", does not mean it has been incorporated into the product.

[Aaron Eberhard]

16 minutes ago, huskermcdoogle said:

To add to this, it would also be nice to know what release of MW the current release of mastercam has incorporated into it.  It's probably not that simple, but it sometimes would be nice to know when we are getting some of the new features that MW puts out.

You're correct that it's not that simple, but it's not too complicated, either

What Colin said applies, but across the board we try to release Mastercam in the spring of each year, so that means we start to "lock down" the code near the end of the year.  You can bank on us using the December MW release, but then we selectively pull back bugfixes or improvements all throughout the beta cycle.  Generally there's less of a chance of putting in a new improvement if it's for the December release and requires a UI change, as we've already frozen the interface at that point so we have to pick it up for the next year.  If a feature requires serious interface work (say, a new toolpath),  it needs to get to us is September which gives us a chance to get it into the software before UI freeze.

As always, if you're looking for something specific, please feel free to reach out to me directly either on here via PM or my email address if you have it.  I try to keep an eye over here, but it's not as regular as it used to be.

[Guest]

Aaron has sent me the help file......

When I get home this evening I will add it to my Dropbox and share a link up here for anyone who wants...

Aaron has let me know that shaing it out is ok

 

it is a good sized file @ 632 megs

Edited September 19, 2017 by Guest

[crazy^millman]

I guess me being left handed is showing it true idea about me in reading this thread. I normally have a good idea what I am trying to accomplish with a toolpath. I normally dive right into my collision control and other things from the get. Maybe I am just too comfortable with these toolpaths to have a good idea of what they will do so just keep it too basic to start the process. Keep the tool normal to the surface is poor form most times in what I am trying to accomplish. Surface with lead/lag is good. Also I am finding the lock to 4th Axis and using normal Vector lines is helping tremulously makes these toolpaths behave they way I want them to. Pay close attention to the collision controls and the 2nd page settings for them this also is helping keep motions nice and smooth in place where normally these toolpaths would be all of the place. I will use .2 on big parts and .05 on smaller parts to see if the motion is what I want, but then once I like it I then turn it down.

John please post that up be nice to get a recent copy of that.

[Aaron Eberhard]

Ron,

I'm not saying that surface normal and no collision control is a good way to get a finished toolpath, simply that if you're having trouble getting a good toolpath, your best bet is to turn off both of 'em, and make sure the toolpath motion itself is good before worrying about the TAC or Collision.

Keeping the tool normal to the surface (with collision off) will display the toolpath at the center/tip of the tool, basically the "pure" calculation.  As soon as you add either of the other two, you're compensating some how so you're potentially seeing a radically different toolpath and it can be confusing to figure out whether you're seeing the result of the tool linking, collision control or tool axis.

 

[huskermcdoogle]

24 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

Keeping the tool normal to the surface (with collision off) will display the toolpath at the center/tip of the tool, basically the "pure" calculation. 

Another way of getting this result for debug is to set tip comp to center with ball endmills and run tool at center in the tool axis page if it isn't a ball.  This will pretty much guarantee that you have no influence other than pattern geometry.  The tool even is pretty much out of the equation at this point.

[crazy^millman]

46 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

Ron,

I'm not saying that surface normal and no collision control is a good way to get a finished toolpath, simply that if you're having trouble getting a good toolpath, your best bet is to turn off both of 'em, and make sure the toolpath motion itself is good before worrying about the TAC or Collision.

Keeping the tool normal to the surface (with collision off) will display the toolpath at the center/tip of the tool, basically the "pure" calculation.  As soon as you add either of the other two, you're compensating some how so you're potentially seeing a radically different toolpath and it can be confusing to figure out whether you're seeing the result of the tool linking, collision control or tool axis.

 

Gotca that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

[BenK]

2 hours ago, Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software said:

To add on to that a bit, I always teach people to focus ONLY on the cut pattern when first trying to make a toolpath.  Turn off any collision control you have and let the tool axis control be "normal to surface."   If you can't get the blue toolpath lines to look like what you want now, adding in tool axis manipulation or collision control isn't going to help you, it's only going to make things worse.

This is how I approach it when I'm in unfamiliar situations. If you can get a "rough" toolpath to give you the motion you are after you are then on the right path to add collision controls to get the exact motion you want. Like Ron I now know these toolpaths well enough and I have experience on similar features and I already know what settings I need to use to get close to the finished path that I'm looking for from the get go.

[Guest]

Here is the link, this is the Moduleworks help file from 8/2017 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gs6vmw7cpq9yhn2/ModuleWorks_-_Documentation.chm?dl=0

 

When you download it, you will most likely have to right click on it and unblock it...

 

A double click opens it for me

Edited September 19, 2017 by Guest

[dingo780]

Got it. Thanks, JParis.

[So not a Guru]

1 hour ago, JParis said:

Here is the link, this is the Moduleworks help file from 8/2017

Thanks John!