Severely bit by Transform Mirror

[neurosis]

Well, Transform Mirror is bad juju. It has possible caused quite a pile of scrap from mirroring an optirough operation. I would love to send this one in to QC. The owner is not a happy camper.

 

I regenerated the operation several times and it is clipping a corner of a part by about .1 It is very hard to see in verify but is absolutely NOT hard to see on the part.

[Thee Rickster ™]

You should send it in.

They like the feed back to improve the paths.

[cobra95kev]

I don't trust the transform stuff at all, without vericut I wouldn't use it.

[neurosis]

I wish that they would purchase vericut.. I have had so many problems with transform operations that I cant believe that I even use them anymore. This is the second issue on the same job with transform/mirror. The last issue was in the clearance moves. It completely left some of them out. A tool ended up rapiding through a corner of our dove tail. I missed it on verify because it was on the back side of the dove tail and the part is fairly large. I missed this clip for the same reason. It is a relatively small cut when you consider the size of the part, but it is well out of tolerance.

 

We lost two parts because of it but was able to make some adjustments and hopefully the next part will work. I am afraid that if I EVER use the words TRANSFORM OPERATION, and SCRAP in the same sentence in this shop again the owner will fire me on the spot. He was very understanding however because he knows how buggy this system is and about its issues.

 

The ONLY reason that I used it this time was because we were pressed for time. Once again, bitten by transform.

[Tinhman]

"I don't trust the transform stuff at all, without vericut I wouldn't use it"

Same here.

[austing]

I have had similar problems. Also, it seems like the transform operations get "dirty" a lot. Have even had problems with transform corrupting the Mastercam file and causing problems the next time I get into it.

 

The only work around that I have found is to transform operations with creating new operations and geometry. It sucks. Would be nice to be able to use this feature because in aerospace there are a ton of mirrored parts or opposites.

[neurosis]

I manually re-drove the tool path and it worked fine. Here is a picture of the transformed path clipping the corner. The cutter looks as if it came down on top of the part and fed down in to the solid.

 

I wondered if this was another issue related to a corner rad tool but I had already removed the corner rad from the tool as it was gouging in other areas when it failed to compensate for the .125 tool radius. I changed the tools corner rad to .015 to solve that gouging problem but wasnt prepared for this one.

[Thee Rickster ™]

I mirror the Geometry and copy the paths.

Regen and at least I know my climb and conventional milling will be identical

[neurosis]

I mirror the Geometry and copy the paths.

Regen and at least I know my climb and conventional milling will be identical

 

 

Normally that is what I do as well. This part had several operations on three different machines and the grain direction of the material added to the funky shape of the part and how we had to hold on to it made this part a pain to mirror.

 

I finally ended up creating any construction geometry, then generated the path. Once that path was done I created levels labeled by operation and opposite dash number. I then used the "only show associative geometry" button, copied only the geometry associated to the path to the opposite labeled levels, mirrored the geometry, and re-drove the path.

 

I have quite a bit of redundant geometry associated with the opposite part but this was the easiest and fastest way for me to get the opposite part programmed since I cannot rely on or trust the mirrored path.

 

There are around 600 operations for this part in the operation manager so the part file is starting to get a bit sluggish.

 

 

I may separate this in to two files at some point. One for the as/shown and one for the opposite in the future if this job starts to look like it will stick around for a while.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

iF YOU HAVE SURFACES OR SOLID OF THE KIND REVOLVE Transform mirror can scrap the part because it changes the normal direction

and this what I had from version v8

I never tried to use tr->mirror on revolved surfaces .

Try avoid them too

HTH

[ToolMan184]

The sad thing is they never have a version out long enough to fix anything. The just keep on throwing little gadgets here and there for us all to continue paying maintenance every year. The second sad thing is.......There all that way. Until some class action stuff is brought against the GREEDY software companies it will never change. Pay to update and Pay to fix it.

 

Never gonna end.

[neurosis]

I think that they ought to change the message that pops up when you hover your mouse over the apply green arrow in the transform tool path from "OK" to "DO YOU FEEL LUCKY?"

[K2csq7]

^^^ Pretty funny stuff right there...

[Greg Williams]

^^ Gold ^^

[MikronGuy]

i would never attempt to transform mirror a surface tool path, all you are doing is asking for trouble because the normals changes etc.

[neurosis]

It was a solid model. Do the normals change for solids as well?

 

Maybe I should present that question to QC once I am able to send this file in. I am struggling with trying to get someone to sign a NDA at the moment.

 

If these transform/mirror operations are not to be used for surfacing operations then it should state that somewhere. Use at your own risk! Which is pretty much what it is at the moment anyway. I have had problems on 2d paths using transform operations as well.

[neurosis]

Wow, I figured that the QC department would take this issue more seriously. I cant seem to get anywhere with them so far. I requested that they sign a NDA and first they tell me that their Product Manager is on vacation until the 22nd which was Monday and now I am being told that the sales department is looking in to it? I am not sure what the sales department has to do with QC? Are the sales department responsible for the Non Disclosure Agreements?

 

Our VAR said that they would send this file in for me so hopefully I will hear something back from either them or the QC department eventually.

[Redfire427]

I asked In-house Solutions to look into some of the issues that we were having with the new transform in X5, and they in-turn passed it along to CNC Software. The answer that came back was that all previous versions of Mastercam had a bug with tranform that customers were using as functionality. I'm a fairly smart individual, however, I have zero faith and am very uncomfortable now when using transform.............ESPECIALLY when using "transform by toolplane". This is one "bug" I would love to have back.

 

Carmen

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I would not bother to deal with NDA's when dealing software developers unless y ou want the run-around...

 

Oh wait, that's what you're getting now!!! LOL

 

Just send the file(s)... they are not sharing customer files.

 

 

[neurosis]

I would not bother to deal with NDA's when dealing software developers unless y ou want the run-around...

 

Oh wait, that's what you're getting now!!! LOL

 

Just send the file(s)... they are not sharing customer files.

 

 

Unfortunately the owner of this company is not comfortable with sending "a large local aerospace companies" models without some kind of agreement. It would be much easier otherwise.

 

I wouldnt imagine that they would use these files for anything other than was intended.

 

:edit:

 

I think that I may have come up with a solution and a way around the NDA. I made some significant changes to the model that do not affect the issue that I am having. I am waiting for a response now and am ready to send a file.

[friggenbozo!]

I wish that they would purchase vericut.. I have had so many problems with transform operations that I cant believe that I even use them anymore. This is the second issue on the same job with transform/mirror. The last issue was in the clearance moves. It completely left some of them out. A tool ended up rapiding through a corner of our dove tail. I missed it on verify because it was on the back side of the dove tail and the part is fairly large. I missed this clip for the same reason. It is a relatively small cut when you consider the size of the part, but it is well out of tolerance.

 

We lost two parts because of it but was able to make some adjustments and hopefully the next part will work. I am afraid that if I EVER use the words TRANSFORM OPERATION, and SCRAP in the same sentence in this shop again the owner will fire me on the spot. He was very understanding however because he knows how buggy this system is and about its issues.

 

The ONLY reason that I used it this time was because we were pressed for time. Once again, bitten by transform.

 

 

Save your file as an stl if you can, and use it as your stock model. Then you will clearly see any steel removed from the finished part. When your done the verify should show only one color on everything. I nicked a corner by .003" and I could see it plain as day.

[K2csq7]

Friggen, are you talking about STL compare?

Nothing to do with transform, but STL compare is really accurate and the color coding makes any gouges stick out like a sore thumb.

It just sucks that you have to finesse verify so much just to keep it from crashing, I would rather have it take 6 hrs. to verify then crash 90% of the time...

[neurosis]

I have actually checked for gouges both ways in the past. Some times when I am trying to save stl files to use as stock, for verify, etc, they never end up where they are supposed to in the file and moving them around with the current tools is a complete pain in the A$$. I use stl files quite a bit for rest roughing so I am getting better at dealing with them but once in a while I get a file that they do not seem to want to cooperate in. Well this was one of those files. I think that I may have asked some questions about saving and moving stl at some point on the forum due to this file. I always make sure that I am in the TOP view when preparing stl files but for some reason this particular file was being a pain.

 

Our stock had a strange grain direction call-out. I never moved this part from its original location (as drawn) so I just drew the stock around the part and then created all of my tooling, work planes, etc, around the part. Now when I run a cutter path and try to save the stl, then re-import it for use as either stock or for rest roughing, it ends up flipped and moved all over the place and I have to screw around with it to try to get it where I need it. The strange thing was, after screwing around with it time after time I start from scratch and out of no where it seems to place where it is supposed to. :shrug:.

 

 

The way we are forced to deal with stl files is a pain in the xxxx. It would be nice if you could stored them INSIDE of the current file and move them using the tools available for moving regular geometry! I have had to go in to files that I have saved as stl and move the parts around manually in the past. I still need to get better with them until Mastercam either fixes these limitations or removes the need for them all together.

[Thee Rickster ™]

Cant fix a 3rd party limitation. Verify = 3rd party software. IF they would spend a whole MU release

creating a new or fixing old verify that would make maintenance seem worth while . For now they

will address the buggy paths mostly though MU's and new releases. So hang tight.

 

....and stay on maintenance. (disclaimer: I do not get royalties for saying that)

[neurosis]

Cant fix a 3rd party limitation. Verify = 3rd party software. IF they would spend a whole MU release

creating a new or fixing old verify that would make maintenance seem worth while . For now they

will address the buggy paths mostly though MU's and new releases. So hang tight.

 

....and stay on maintenance. (disclaimer: I do not get royalties for saying that)

 

Yes, a better verify would be very nice!

 

Better handling of STL files would be very nice!

 

I pressure the Big guy to stay on maintenance and have to convince him of how valuable that it is ever single time that it comes up for renewal. He has never been a big fan of the amount of bugs experienced in this software. When we purchased Mastercam originally we were having a hard time finding a back up programmer that knew how to use Cimatron. We had so much work at the time that I couldnt keep up so he purchased Mastercam so that we could easily find a back up programmer (seems like mastercam users are everywhere and came much cheaper!). With a seat of Cimatron and a seat of Mastercam sitting right next to each other it didnt take long for Mastercam to shine in the bug department. <grin> He has already dropped maintenance once but I spent some time with him and convinced him to renew it and regretfully, to drop the maintenance on Cimatron instead and I started learning how to use Mastercam. Since it is now our main programming system I work hard to convince him how important and valuable maintenance is and it has paid off with the new dynamic tool paths and some of the other enhancements! Now if we could get some of these bugs worked out I wouldnt have to work so hard to convince him. The software would do it on its own.