Stock Models and Opti-Rough

[crazy^millman]

I am confused what is the purpose of defining stock models if we have to create a boundary to make the Opti-Rough Toolpaths work correctly. I have a very simple part I want to Opti-Rough it and have it use the stock. Now I have to go create a boundary and make sure it is large enough to allow the tool inside of it to cut the part from the outside. If I could crab the solid edge of the stock and have it work from outside then that would be great, but have found that doesn’t work if you don’t define a solid stock shape. By just defining your stock using the Mastercam Stock Set up under Machine Group Properties or defining a shape in the Stock Model. Neither allow you that freedom to pick the edge for a boundary so now the programmer is back to creating wireframe or a solid block of their raw stock they can then work from. Even with that if you want the toolpath to start outside of a shape that is wide open you must make a boundary large enough to allow the tool to work. 

 

Why is we go through all the trouble of defining a stock model, but the software is not intelligent enough to allow the program to just pick it and it works outside when it should? The Stock model has a defined mass. The Part has a defined mass. The software should be able to scan the part and then compare the shape to it. If the shape has no intersection features that align with the outside shape then the software should be able to determine through it algorithm the shape is a closed shape that resides inside of the stock. The stock defines what needs to be removed. The part defines what needs to be left. If the difference between the shapes requires it into the inside to cut the software does a great job, it is just the outside we have to do extra steps.

 

What are others takes on this? CNC Software is off till After Christmas and suspect many others also, but I would like to hear what end users think about this method and process to use this toolpath effectively without having to create geometry to do so.

[BenK]

Another question is why doesn't it recognize any undercut areas in the stock when calculating the toolpaths? The toolpath should scan the model after every depth cut to see if the stock condition has changed. 

Also, why do I continue getting empty stock models? Just having the outer layer as a sheet with nothing inside it is not acceptable. Yesterday I had to reverse engineer my STL stock just so I could use a solid to define my stock. Took me over three hours and could have been avoided if it read the STL correctly. 

[Lord Wukits]

I believe this was №1 of all the BS I had to wrap my head around when learning the software. I  was so frustrated by the need to define/make stock[wireframes or actual model]  just to verify, and has no use whatsoever for toolpaths.

My coworkers laugh whenever they glance over and I am setting up verification because of this. They enjoy the software that has me define the stock, just to watch the tool plow through a wall, to start machining on the other side. Granted I now use check surfaces.

[BenK]

I also have to ask, why did they take away the ability to use a user created WCS? I wanted to move my stock around on a fixture the other day but cant because I can't set my initial stock to display in the correct location when I used my part WCS. 

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

44 minutes ago, BenK said:

I also have to ask, why did they take away the ability to use a user created WCS? I wanted to move my stock around on a fixture the other day but cant because I can't set my initial stock to display in the correct location when I used my part WCS. 

When did this happen?  That's kind of a necessary thing.  I have a stock prep operation, then move the stock to the fixture which is in TOP for 5ax work.  I was doing the stock prep 3ax but just started doing it 5ax so I can use the tools more efficiently and cut the cycle time, but that means I absolutely have to move the stock model unless I redefine it.

[Zoffen]

Yes you would think the software would be smart enough to figure this out on its own...i would love to make less geo to do my job!

 

2 hours ago, BenK said:

I also have to ask, why did they take away the ability to use a user created WCS? I wanted to move my stock around on a fixture the other day but cant because I can't set my initial stock to display in the correct location when I used my part WCS. 

No WCS options on stock models is not a great direction for the function to be heading!

That is a very useful feature!!!!!

 

[jlw™]

5 hours ago, BenK said:

Another question is why doesn't it recognize any undercut areas in the stock when calculating the toolpaths? The toolpath should scan the model after every depth cut to see if the stock condition has changed. 

Also, why do I continue getting empty stock models? Just having the outer layer as a sheet with nothing inside it is not acceptable. Yesterday I had to reverse engineer my STL stock just so I could use a solid to define my stock. Took me over three hours and could have been avoided if it read the STL correctly. 

This is my biggest problem with stock models and has been since I started using them right before going to X9.  I have this all the time.  Send files in and they tell me they don't see it.  I keep sending in files and video with no results.  I have to open  my tolerance up to like .01 which is undesirable because it will make tools run around areas that really do not have any stock there.

[Gary]

Need 3d stock that recognizes when the stock is gone from the previous setup. Say when you cut top of a part and flip over and rest goes all the way down to min z even though the stock was gone and inch before. Yes I know you can dummy op some toolpaths and make more stock models but you should not have to. And yes drawing big azz rectangles on the screen to get a area or opti rest to work correct is dumb. If you outside for containment thats what it should mean, not well almost all outside. 

[jeff]

I just wish that when you turn off stock model shading, IT STAYS TURNED OFF!

[crazy^millman]

17 minutes ago, jeff said:

I just wish that when you turn off stock model shading, IT STAYS TURNED OFF!

That was fixed in the 2018 either SP2 or SP3.

[jeff]

15 hours ago, C^Millman said:

That was fixed in the 2018 either SP2 or SP3.

Are you sure? I'm running the latest and greatest update. Beta preview 4 I believe.

Granted I don't use stock models all that often, and it seems to want to keep my toolpaths highlighted to where I have to click the "toggle display on selected operations" button 20 times. 

 

[nickbe10]

I use an STL rather than a Stock Model. Not without its problems but I have no issues getting it into the right place for different ops, and a subsequent "rest" op just uses the STL generated by the first op. I know its "old school" but I am so use to it now.....and if it ain't broke (as opposed to slightly worn and glitchy)......

So I have a question, what ever happened to "Transform STL" in the Transform drop down? I know you can save it to a level and select it but why reduce the options?

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, nickbe10 said:

So I have a question, what ever happened to "Transform STL" in the Transform drop down? I know you can save it to a level and select it but why reduce the options?

The functions in the normal XFORM menu work on it now,,,has for several versions

Becasue they're not easy to pick, I will have a solid, on a different level, in the same position, I then pick the solid & stl, using the solid geometry as the pick point to transform it into the position/positions that I need.....then save it back out as an stl

Edited December 29, 2017 by Guest

[nickbe10]

1 hour ago, JParis said:

The functions in the normal XFORM menu work on it now,,,has for several versions

Yeah, I know.....still (just having a quick whine), and I would also add Transform STL was NOT very user friendly, but required fewer steps to set up (or am I just imagining that?).....I use 3 points and some convenient geometry, a circle or corner that I keep on a separate level to "track" my STL....which was what I used back in the "old" days....I AM a creature of habit (although I maintain to my boss the word is METHOD).......

[Guest]

1 minute ago, nickbe10 said:

Yeah, I know.....still (just having a quick whine), and I would also add Transform STL was NOT very user friendly, but required fewer steps to set up (or am I just imagining that?)....

I think that's just your imagination, though I've never studied it too deeply.....I always found it a PITA to get things exactly where I wanted........using a solid now for me, it's easy peasy 

[crazy^millman]

Verisurf works with STL so nicely and you can fit shapes and features to an STL and keep your file size 1/10 of the size using their Reverse part of the software. I will make sections of stock model using their crop tools so that I can do work with stock model I would have never been able to do with just standard Mastercam. Hopefully a major overhaul is coming with regards to STL in Mastercam. The industry is pushing it and it up to us to ask for these things to be improved and done in such a way our jobs is more manageable using Mastercam.

It just blows my mind more people don't see an issue with stock model and having to go through extra steps to define things you would think the software should be able to do. Hopefully we see it in the near future.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

It just blows my mind more people don't see an issue with stock model and having to go through extra steps to define things you would think the software should be able to do. Hopefully we see it in the near future.

I find the added weight of stock models in much of what I do more of a detrement than a help......I find they break regulary, and I have had tool paths calculate improperly becasue of the breaking of the models.....do I see it, yeah....pretty worthless to me except in rare occasion.

Files with a couple hundred ops and a multitude of transforms and stock model don't play nice.

[nickbe10]

41 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

Verisurf works with STL so nicely and you can fit shapes and features to an STL and keep your file size 1/10 of the size using their Reverse part of the software.

This is definitely something on my list of things to explore. However I have bigger fish to fry at the moment, when you open legacy programs here they are generally 1 level, 1 colour (#10!!!!), 30 - 100 entities and the same number of toolpaths.

I got derailed when I first got here (lack of experience in our shop supervisors required me to be out on the floor way too much), but now after 8 months actually doing the job I was hired for we are one step away on the mills (prod+ being the last step, we probe a lot) from being 100% edit free post and go.

Next on to the lathes, and then I want to look at Verisurf and NCsimul......There is a linear cell and $6M of out shopped "gravy" on my horizon for which both of these, I am sure, would be handy.

The whole "stock awareness" thing is definitely a drag on MC, although I think you could argue that if your 3D spatial orientation is that poor you are probably short on machine time to be a truly effective programmer, just my opinion of course.......and the extra power definitely makes a good programmer quicker....

[BenK]

1 hour ago, C^Millman said:

Verisurf works with STL so nicely and you can fit shapes and features to an STL and keep your file size 1/10 of the size using their Reverse part of the software. I will make sections of stock model using their crop tools so that I can do work with stock model I would have never been able to do with just standard Mastercam. Hopefully a major overhaul is coming with regards to STL in Mastercam. The industry is pushing it and it up to us to ask for these things to be improved and done in such a way our jobs is more manageable using Mastercam.

It just blows my mind more people don't see an issue with stock model and having to go through extra steps to define things you would think the software should be able to do. Hopefully we see it in the near future.

 

I agree, the Verisurf tools are great. Being able to fit shapes on a STL makes it easy to Xform them around because you actually have something to grab onto.

 

I think one reason you don't see more people complaining about stock models is a lot of people simply don't use them. 

[jlw™]

37 minutes ago, BenK said:

I think one reason you don't see more people complaining about stock models is a lot of people simply don't use them. 

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

[huskermcdoogle]

4 hours ago, C^Millman said:

It just blows my mind more people don't see an issue with stock model and having to go through extra steps to define things you would think the software should be able to do. Hopefully we see it in the near future.

Couldn't agree more, stock model only does me good to get started, one or two tool paths I create in every file will crash stock model, to get stock I have to use machsim, and import it back in.  Talk about extra steps.

[Watcher]

I'm sure it's a training problem.

Get back to V9.1 ungrateful bastids!  

 

[jlw™]

2 hours ago, huskermcdoogle said:

Couldn't agree more, stock model only does me good to get started, one or two tool paths I create in every file will crash stock model, to get stock I have to use machsim, and import it back in.  Talk about extra steps.

I always save stl from verify and import to a level.

[gcode]

I use stock models all the time... but I create them with saved STL files from Verify

Live stock models are prone to going dirty at the drop of a hat, which can cause

hours of regen.

If they are defined via STL file, they are stable as a bank vault

[crazy^millman]

21 hours ago, gcode said:

I use stock models all the time... but I create them with saved STL files from Verify

Live stock models are prone to going dirty at the drop of a hat, which can cause

hours of regen.

If they are defined via STL file, they are stable as a bank vault

Problem is how big the file size gets which is the flip side of the equation. Now you start getting 1gb files in a hurry. You know the parts I have worked on and breaking them up is not desirable. However have done what I needed to get the job done. I remember a decade ago making models from toolpaths using the back plotted geometry to aid in recreating a solid that was as cut to match machined parts per operation like stock model are. I could have a week on some of the more involved parts. I cut weeks out of production times doing that. Stock model is a great tool, but I would like to see something we have like with lathe where we can get an in process solid model through operations. I am now sure why or even if there was work do port that methodology over to Mill, but STL is proving to be more involved that dealing with solids, I can sometimes make solids close to the shape of an operation and use it ten time faster than trying to us a stock model. 

Yes the dirty stock model at the drop of a hat and all the regen time. Just had this very conversation with someone from CNC. Will not go into detail, but even they mentioned looking for other methods to get the work done verses waiting on the regen times. End of the day things are faster than the were, but we are being asked to do more faster than every before. We spend good money on good computers and still have to wait on things to regen and use methods that to me should be more intuitive than they are. We need to engage the next generation of programmers I agree, but still need to support the current user base. I started this conversation in the hopes of getting tangible feedback if I am just on an island or in good company. 

End of  the day we can get the job done using what ever method we need, but why should we have too? Our responsibility is provide Manufacturing support to our respective employers or customers depending on what we do. Most shops may not need stock models for what they do, but even on some simple job shop work I have done for a recent customer I found the stock models to be extremely helpful and allowed me to communicate things I would have never been able to do before. I don’t have the luxury most times of running what I program. It can be for someone 2500 miles or 15000 miles away. My process must answer the who, what, where, when and how to manufacturer the part. Stock models have come along way and not trying to bash anyone with this conversation, but improvements can only happen when you seek them. 

I have been involved in focus groups and know people care to make the product better. Hopefully this is well received and gives food for thought. Keep your comments coming I feel less like it just me.