Runtimes

[Lugzey]

Would like the backplot times to match the runtimes on our HAAS VF5 and VF6. I've messed with the rapid traverse settings and made some progress. I feel as though I'm moving in the wrong direction. The rapid on the HAAS is about 710 IPM. Yet, I'm anywhere from 50-100 IPM just to get close to making the times match. This changes again if there are numerous tool changes. It was suggested the problem is in the backplot. It doesn't know the acceleration of the machine as well as the height from the tool changer. Is there any way that I can fill in these variables into Mastercam? I'm guessing like setting up some sort of a virtual machine setting? Or am I living in a dreamworld? Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks.

[mr801]

Would like the backplot times to match the runtimes on our HAAS VF5 and VF6. I've messed with the rapid traverse settings and made some progress. I feel as though I'm moving in the wrong direction. The rapid on the HAAS is about 710 IPM. Yet, I'm anywhere from 50-100 IPM just to get close to making the times match. This changes again if there are numerous tool changes. It was suggested the problem is in the backplot. It doesn't know the acceleration of the machine as well as the height from the tool changer. Is there any way that I can fill in these variables into Mastercam? I'm guessing like setting up some sort of a virtual machine setting? Or am I living in a dreamworld? Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks.

 

Get Vericut. I had a job this morning and the backplot time was 38 minutes on Mastercam. The actual runtime was 1Hr.16 min. 16 seconds. Vericut time was 1Hr 16min 3 seconds for their backplot. I have my mastercam Tweaked for rapids and tool change time, but still inaccurate. I know, I know, Vericut is expensive. But I am lucky to have it...

[DavidJackson]

I ran a job like 40 hours long & timed it with a stop watch,

Then went into machine dynamics and chased the acceleration G value until

the time reported by "highfeed - finishing only" was the same as the real time it took.

 

(I dont actually use high feed yet, i just use it to report the time)

 

It seems to work pretty well, obviously tool change isnt included,

Its quite handy when your trying to quote something and backplot/job sheet reports 100 hours and

highfeed finishing reports 300 hours.

[YoDoug®]

NC Plot always seems to be a lot closer to actual machine times versus mastercam back plot.

[Lugzey]

What did you change the value to? Still on default settings. Which is .01. Also running X5, if that makes any difference?

I ran a job like 40 hours long & timed it with a stop watch,

Then went into machine dynamics and chased the acceleration G value until

the time reported by "highfeed - finishing only" was the same as the real time it took.

 

(I dont actually use high feed yet, i just use it to report the time)

 

It seems to work pretty well, obviously tool change isnt included,

Its quite handy when your trying to quote something and backplot/job sheet reports 100 hours and

highfeed finishing reports 300 hours.

[Lugzey]

Would like to do that, but my employers would use that as a last result. Software looks great though. Thanks

Get Vericut. I had a job this morning and the backplot time was 38 minutes on Mastercam. The actual runtime was 1Hr.16 min. 16 seconds. Vericut time was 1Hr 16min 3 seconds for their backplot. I have my mastercam Tweaked for rapids and tool change time, but still inaccurate. I know, I know, Vericut is expensive. But I am lucky to have it...

[DavidJackson]

its machine dependent, just keep changing the number untill its about correct

the last one i did ended up at 0.045 (as its written on my wall)

 

its annoying when people set the feed override to 120% though.

(why is that a seemingly common option? if i wanted the guy running the job to have an

extra 20% i would have increased the programmed feed? is it a legacy thing from somewhere?)

[Colin Gilchrist]

its machine dependent, just keep changing the number untill its about correct

the last one i did ended up at 0.045 (as its written on my wall)

 

its annoying when people set the feed override to 120% though.

(why is that a seemingly common option? if i wanted the guy running the job to have an

extra 20% i would have increased the programmed feed? is it a legacy thing from somewhere?)

 

I think the idea of the feedrate override was just to give an operator the ability to adjust something at the machine. Most controls will have an M Code that will let you disable the feedrate override knob. I used to do this so that someone can't turn the feed down to 20% to give themselves extra time to read the paper.

 

On a Fanuc Control, it is M49 to disable the feedrate override, and M48 to enable it...

[overthecrossbar]

I think Cimco is pretty close if you set the rapid and tool cange time correctly.

[Lugzey]

It's by far the closest without spending money on another program. It's was a little bit off with any program with a tapping cycle though. Is there something else I can do for that? Thanks also for getting as close as I am now.

I think Cimco is pretty close if you set the rapid and tool cange time correctly.