More Surface Flowline Conflicts in MC-2017?

[Myth Project]

I'm modifying a program written in MX9.  I have a working flowline surface, but if I try to regenerate it in 2017 it says there is now a "Flowline surface conflict found, toolpath not possible"...

The only work around I've found for this is making multiple flowline surface folders and selecting only a few surfaces at a time.  Turning what was once one folder into 15 folders... Help or advice?

I'll attach the file for clarity, the folder in question is folder #79.

Thanks!

James

504626-6.7z

[crazy^millman]

I looked at your file and yes I can confirm what you are seeing, but have to ask why would you use the toolpath to cut those radius surfaces like that? The U-V directions are all over the place and for all those surfaces I would have either broken up that toolpath to do more common section with the same U-V or I would have use a different toolpaths all together to machine the areas you are trying to machine. I am honestly surprised you even got that to work in X9 and sorry no X9 here, but yes I can confirm I see the same thing you do. I have to say I would expect to see that issue with the way you are going about it.

Here is a screen shot of your operation before I try to regenerate. Sorry, but that is ugly plain and simple as I can say it.

 

[crazy^millman]

The other thing is trying to force too big of a tool into certain areas. Sorry, but that 1/16 ball endmill is not going to cut certain areas of that part no matter how hard you try to force it in there.

 

[Colin Gilchrist]

Many people use Flowline Operations, because they don't know any other way to do it.

For these situations, my "go to" toolpath is "Surface Finish Blend".

This requires you to create 2 chains of geometry, that the tool will "blend" between. (Chains are "centerline" of the tool, so you often have to offset by at least the tool radius.)

[Myth Project]

The path wasn't that ugly, it gets wonky once you try viewing them in MC-2017...

[Myth Project]

I also realize the tool will not fit all the way into the tightest corners, it's a surface deburr.

[crazy^millman]

Just now, Myth Project said:

I also realize the tool will not fit all the way into the tightest corners, it's a surface deburr.

Problem is the flowline toolpaths like what you see in the name something that flows nice and easy. Think of pouring water down a straw. That straw as long as the shape is not kinked the water will flow nice and easy as it is bent. The second you kink the straw the water quits flowing as nice. The same thing with Flow line toolpaths you want all your flow lines to do that and flow nice together. If they don't then yes you will get what you are getting. Like Colin said approaching it a different way will produce much better results. Maybe more work upfront, but if you get a very nice looking part that no one had to touch and not having to risk the part with deburring by hand then that would be the best course of action in my book.

You are having issue bringing a working file in a previous version into a newer version. I would send the file to QC and let them answer you why you are seeing the issue you are seeing.

I wouldn't go about it the way you are going about it and sorry my comments seem to come across negatively they are not meant too. I want to help anyone and everyone be better at their job and if you went about it a little differently I think you would surprised how nice and better the results you would get is my thinking.

[crazy^millman]

15 minutes ago, Myth Project said:

The path wasn't that ugly, it gets wonky once you try viewing them in MC-2017...

Sorry I could only go by what I was seeing from the file you put up, not from what you were getting before that time. That is nice work and everything looks great I was just going by what I was seeing. Again not trying to be negative.

[crazy^millman]

Can make another suggestion on the filter settings. I would recommend going to 50/50 and turn off the smooth settings. I have noticed a lot of jumping in the flowline toolpaths having smooth on that I don't get when it is turned off.

[crazy^millman]

Sorry another suggestion look at using 30deg and 45deg angles for what you doing also. It will allow you to use shorter tools and still machine the areas you want without having to drag a tool up and down some of the vertical walls.

[Myth Project]

I'll try using 50/50 and turning off the smooth setting in the future, see if that improves my results.  I have started increasing the gap size for keeping the tool down, but your suggestion may work better.  I'm not offended Millman, I honestly appreciate any and all input, thank you.  It is near impossible to learn without taking suggestions and information from different perspectives.

The reason I'm working the surfaces from the 0 deg rotation is because of the length of the part, along with the amount of material being removed, the part will bow under the pressure of the live center.  We've discovered it works better to lock the part in a vise for stability once we hit the 0 deg rotation. I agree though, it would be nice to use a shorter tool...  Had some issues with the .0625 breaking...

Also, I was using 2017 to show the toolpath, I just didn't use the flowline under the geom tab.  2017 makes it look all crazy, and that's why it won't regen.  It doesn't see it the same way it was seen before, which is what I'm finding odd.  Why is it now incapable of creating a smooth toolpath on geometry that it has pathed previously?

 

1 hour ago, C^Millman said:

You are having issue bringing a working file in a previous version into a newer version. I would send the file to QC and let them answer you why you are seeing the issue you are seeing.

Send the file to QC?  I'm not sure who you mean, please elaborate.

 

1 hour ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

Many people use Flowline Operations, because they don't know any other way to do it.

For these situations, my "go to" toolpath is "Surface Finish Blend".

This requires you to create 2 chains of geometry, that the tool will "blend" between. (Chains are "centerline" of the tool, so you often have to offset by at least the tool radius.)

I've never used Surface Finish Blend, but I will look into how to use it in the future to see if it improves my processes.  Thanks for the tip.

[crazy^millman]

26 minutes ago, Myth Project said:

Send the file to QC?  I'm not sure who you mean, please elaborate.

email qc (at) mastercam (dot) com and they will be glad to look into the file you are having problems with.

Glad you are taking the suggestion in a good way. I have more on this part and if you don't mind I will put them as a suggestions for not only you but others.

I have seen the same thing you are seeing on parts. I designed something like this about a decade ago to help with parts we did. There is a simple version and a more involved version. It really help to support the parts and allow us to hold the tight tolerances we were having to hold the parts we were machining.

Here are links to the models if anyone wants them.

12" long 4th Axis Support

Simple 4th Axis Support

 

[Myth Project]

Thanks Millman, I've emailed QC, I'll update one I get a response from them.  That is an interesting support for your 4th axis, looks nice.

[Greg Williams]

Sweet, Thanks mate

[crazy^millman]

4 hours ago, Myth Project said:

That is an interesting support for your 4th axis, looks nice.

On the part I could not share ITAR we would mill some of the features with a ball endmill and others we had to mill with a key seat cutter. That is why it had 0 and 90 positions on them. We also did different diameter parts the idea was swap out the jaws for the different size parts we did. The should bolts were done in such a way to give that range of rotation.

[Myth Project]

Alright, here's what I've discovered.

QC tried using my MX9 file and had the same issue and asked me to try regenerating the toolpath, expecting it would fail.  They weren't sure how I managed to get a clean toolpath on that folder.  They also told me that loosening my Total Tolerances in my flowline toolpath would allow the path to work.  I tried, but it added way more air time to the path than I previously had.  So after talking with them, I began to wonder why my MX9 would work where theirs would not...  The answer, I tightened my tolerances in my MX9 configuration.  After carrying over my modifications to MC-2017, it will now regenerate the toolpaths exactly like it had in MX9.

For those who would like to know, the settings I changed are as follows:

Chaining Tolerance: .0001

Planar Tolerance: .0002

Minimum Arc Tolerance: .0002

Curve Minimum Step Size: .0001

Curve Maximum Step Size: 100.0

Curve Chordal Deviation: .0002

Maximum Surface Deviation: .00005

Toolpath Tolerance: .0001

 

Give this a shot and see what it does for y'all!  Thanks everyone!

 

James

[crazy^millman]

James do you mind if I put some Stock Model and Opti-Rough toolpaths to some of the areas of that part? I will post it back up to teach maybe you and others where and how even on something like this stock models and Opti-Rough toolpaths will allows this to run faster? I am thinking it will save some work by integrating them into your programming process that maybe you or others may not be aware of. 

It will take me probably a week as I can slammed with work, but wanted to use it for an example if you don't mind. 

[Myth Project]

3 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

James do you mind if I put some Stock Model and Opti-Rough toolpaths to some of the areas of that part? I will post it back up to teach maybe you and others where and how even on something like this stock models and Opti-Rough toolpaths will allows this to run faster? I am thinking it will save some work by integrating them into your programming process that maybe you or others may not be aware of. 

It will take me probably a week as I can slammed with work, but wanted to use the for an example if you don't mind. 

Doesn't bother me any, I'm always on board to learn more.   Did you mess with tightening the tolerances?