Refreshing solids with toolpaths

[PEPPERCORN RANCH]

MC2020...and others

Sometimes when I modify a solid that has toolpaths attached to it I find it impossible to refresh the solid unless I remove the toolpaths that are connected. Is there a way around this?

[Guest]

What is the nature of modification you are doing? And what types of toolpaths are associated? I found sometimes using Boolean add/remove in lieu of functions like extrude that's have dependency to a wireframe causes less trouble. Also saving a separate set of surfaces is a plus if you are using surfacing operations, And edge curves for 2D geometry as this allows you to import and export operations attached to geometry.

[JParis]

18 hours ago, PEPPERCORN RANCH said:

MC2020...and others

Sometimes when I modify a solid that has toolpaths attached to it I find it impossible to refresh the solid unless I remove the toolpaths that are connected. Is there a way around this?

Maybe....

If you look in the Solid tree, when you have toolpaths and use the solid to drive for geometry, you can see in the tree, those toolpaths are associated with said model, like this

Now, because my solid is now attached to the solid, ANY changes I make to that solid WILL cause that toolpath to go dirty and need to be regenerated...that's associativity.

Typically, a good work flow will have ALL the model changes done before beginning the programming process.....if changes are made to the model that don't affect to toolpath, while it will go dirty, they tend to regenerate pretty quickly..now if the changes made to the solid affect the toolpath, that toolpath should absolutely be reviewed...

In the picture above, I only have 1 path, that's not a huge deal.....but if you have a bunch of toolpaths and need to make a model change, it CAN become a really big deal...

I have had situations where I just have too much work involved and do not want to go back over it BUT something changed and I need to either change or import and updated model...

In those cases, I will keep a copy of the model, on a different, clearly labeled level so that I know it's exact purpose....and continue on with the new model..

When the time comes for a Rev change, I would at that point go through and update everything properly...

But a good and proper workflow is really the single best guard against it.

 

[PEPPERCORN RANCH]

I agree. The problem comes in when you make a change to a model. Move a hole, or whatever. Most of the time I can just regenerate the tool paths and the model. Sometimes it will not allow me to regenerate the model until I regenerate the tool path. However, when you regenerate the path the dirty op shows it has been regenerated, but once you go and look at the model manager it will not let you refresh the model because it shows the tool paths are still dirty. Then when you go back to the tool path it shows that it was never regenerated.

The only way I can see to regenerate the model when this happens is to create a wireframe and associate all of those paths to that wireframe, then regenerate the model and then re-associate all of the paths back to the model.  Most times I do not have this issue. It seems to be a new bug since 2019.

 

[JParis]

8 minutes ago, PEPPERCORN RANCH said:

I agree. The problem comes in when you make a change to a model. Move a hole, or whatever. Most of the time I can just regenerate the tool paths and the model. Sometimes it will not allow me to regenerate the model until I regenerate the tool path. However, when you regenerate the path the dirty op shows it has been regenerated, but once you go and look at the model manager it will not let you refresh the model because it shows the tool paths are still dirty. Then when you go back to the tool path it shows that it was never regenerated.

The only way I can see to regenerate the model when this happens is to create a wireframe and associate all of those paths to that wireframe, then regenerate the model and then re-associate all of the paths back to the model.  Most times I do not have this issue. It seems to be a new bug since 2019.

 

A big thing that can be done to help is do not use the geometry used to create the model for toolpaths...

I will generally move that geometry to a level and turn it off...any modification of that geometry will break the defined solid...changed enough, you can't regenerate the solid..

Not new, unless I'm overlooking something, it's been that way since the creation of solids was introduced into the software

 

EDIT:  There is also the option of turning it into a dumb solid, removing the creation history

[PEPPERCORN RANCH]

I rule of thumb that I follow is to remove the history of the model before even starting a tool path. Then I delete the geometry. Working with Gibbscam for a while made me absolutely hate wireframe entities...and Gibbscam. Using Gibbscam is like using Windows 98 all over again.

[Guest]

I also remove the history..but wireframe has a lot of advantages for import/export/modification maybe you would mind having it around less if it were blanked?

[JB7280]

19 hours ago, Old_Bear said:

A big thing that can be done to help is do not use the geometry used to create the model for toolpaths...

I will generally move that geometry to a level and turn it off...any modification of that geometry will break the defined solid...changed enough, you can't regenerate the solid..

Not new, unless I'm overlooking something, it's been that way since the creation of solids was introduced into the software

 

EDIT:  There is also the option of turning it into a dumb solid, removing the creation history

Since i had some associativity issues when I first started using MC, I got into the habit of removing the solid history.  Is there any disadvantage to doing this?  I haven't found any yet.

[JParis]

20 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

Since i had some associativity issues when I first started using MC, I got into the habit of removing the solid history.  Is there any disadvantage to doing this?  I haven't found any yet.

Other than losing the associativity if changes become necessary....not to the way I do things, no..