Saving a useable STL file out of X7 Verify

[CamMan1]

Do any of the Guru's that are loving the new Verify in X7 know a way to save a useable STL file out of the Verification? A lot of the programming I do requires multiple operations on multiple machines. I verify my part up to a certain point than save as an STL then pick back up on the verification using the saved STL. Any file I have saved out of X7's verification is so chunky and deformed that it is impossible for me to use it in that state. Any help would be appreciated because as it stands right know I will not be moving to X7.

[gcode]

On the Backplot/Verify Options page in the OPs Manger, define your STL Tolerance

Launch Verify and slide the Precision slider max right

Go to the File/General and Set the "Save STL tolerance" to .001

Run Verify

then

File/Save Stock as

[djstedman]

In the new Verify window .. under the file menu.. is a menu item called options.

 

By changing the 'save STL tolerance' you can make the quality of the STL more precise.

[CamMan1]

I have already done all that and it stiil looks like crap!! I can't believe anybody is okay with the Verification working like this! I understand that your thrilled gcode but this is totally unacceptable for me and the way I work. Here is an example screen of a simple cut with a flat bottom end mill saved as an STL.

[CamMan1]

Well it looks like no one has a good answer for the STL file issue. I was hoping to hear that there was a workaround that is commonplace in Mastercam. The Verify worked bad in the beta and release candidate and I was told that it would be better in the production release. Well that didnt happen! How can anyone possibly say they are okay with this. I don't get it. I actually thought that this new verification would be a step in the right direction. Boy was I wrong or should I say mislead.

[djstedman]

Just a question.. does the STL file look like the picture you posted? Since the pic is from within Verify I was wondering if the actual STL file that was output was any better quality

[gschlen]

Is the verfifier set to "Turbo Mode"?

[ChuckK]

Not only are the STL meshed more chunky looking, they are about 80% heavier on the poly count. Below are two parts one saved from X7 (Blue) and one from X6 (Green). The one from X7 has 710K lines and the one from X6 has 88K. The one from X6 not only looks better but is more accurate. Both were saved with a tolerance of 0.001.

[Aaron Eberhard]

I would encourage everyone to hit up the webinar on Monday that I posted a thread about here, where things like this and the design intent of Simulator edit covered.

 

The easy solution to this issue, though, is to use Stock Model. Besides just using the Stock Model to drive your different machine groups & toolpaths, you can also export your Stock Model to an STL, or, even better, to a Pmesh model which you can then interact with (move around, etc) which you could then select to trim your toolpaths, create a new stock model in a different place, etc.

 

 

Edit: In my (admitted limited, I don't use STLs much anymore) experience, the Stock Model STL is more efficient (size/triangle count) than X6's Verify model was....

[djstedman]

Yeah I had also noticed that the STL files were definitly bigger .. I wasnt sure on the accuracy part of them though.. I have to say the overall quality of the verify is not impressing me much.. its great thats its in its own window but verify is pretty much at the core of what I do as a programmer, I constantly rely on it for how blends will look etc.. it doesn't do me much good to have it be able to run a verify on a huge part or have it in its own window, if the end result doesn't give me the information I need.

 

Maybe I just need to get used to it.. but that screenshot of a flat endmill cut and the graphical errors that show up does a great job of illuminating the issue.

 

The STL file issue to me seems less important since if you use stock models and work using views + multiple machine / toolpath groups you can process the entire part in one file.. although with the same issue as STL files.. once the file gets too big this method breaks down as well..

 

At least with the STL files I can use Meshlab to shrink the files down some..

[djstedman]

Ok well Aaron posted while I was typing my last post, but from the sounds of it, it seems like there is a learning curve to X7.. because thinking about it.. using stock model and stock model compare allows me to see the cutting conditions and apparantly saving the STL too. (Thanks for pointing that out Aaron)

 

So I guess now I can think of verify of more of a tool for checking for collisions and stock model for checking blends etc.. and verify less as a way to check my blends etc..

[Aaron Eberhard]

Yeah I had also noticed that the STL files were definitly bigger .. I wasnt sure on the accuracy part of them though.. I have to say the overall quality of the verify is not impressing me much.. its great thats its in its own window but verify is pretty much at the core of what I do as a programmer, I constantly rely on it for how blends will look etc.. it doesn't do me much good to have it be able to run a verify on a huge part or have it in its own window, if the end result doesn't give me the information I need.

 

Maybe I just need to get used to it.. but that screenshot of a flat endmill cut and the graphical errors that show up does a great job of illuminating the issue.

 

 

Not to hijack this thread, but I'm hijacking this thread (which is all about saving a useable STL)

 

Besides being a different window, it's also multithreaded and can use more than 4Gb of ram, in addition to a host of other things (like verifying things that could never have been loaded before)..

 

 

*edit: you just replied, and you're welcome!*

 

 

It sounds like you're starting to see the purpose of it, but one thing to note: If you have an issue with the quality of an edge or fillet or whatever, there is an "Accurate Zoom" button that will help with that:

[Newbeeee™]

Stupid question time....We're on X5 and will be going to X7.

We stl compare nearly every job to ensure we haven't missed any detail.

So is this stl quality issue a problem for doing stl compare?

Thanks

[Aaron Eberhard]

Stupid question time....We're on X5 and will be going to X7.

We stl compare nearly every job to ensure we haven't missed any detail.

So is this stl quality issue a problem for doing stl compare?

Thanks

 

Newbeeee - Since this post is effectively hijacked....

 

The new Simulator (Verify) works fine to compare a cut to an STL, but I wouldn't recommend saving STLs out of the simulator. For that, I would use Stock Model, which has finer control of the resolution. You can also do a comparison against an STL right in Stock Model, too.

[Newbeeee™]

Thanks Aaron

[Aaron Eberhard]

You're welcome, sir. You'll love X7. There's a lot of improvements to get your head around, so I'd recommend going to a rollout if you can, but you won't be able to go back after you get used to it!

[Newbeeee™]

I want to go to a rollout. I asked my reseller to do one for X5.....and X6.....and X7.

 

C'mon Stew - get the kettle on and we'll be there!!!

[CamMan1]

Not to hijack this thread, but I'm hijacking this thread (which is all about saving a useable STL)

 

Besides being a different window, it's also multithreaded and can use more than 4Gb of ram, in addition to a host of other things (like verifying things that could never have been loaded before)..

 

 

*edit: you just replied, and you're welcome!*

 

 

It sounds like you're starting to see the purpose of it, but one thing to note: If you have an issue with the quality of an edge or fillet or whatever, there is an "Accurate Zoom" button that will help with that:

 

The thumbnail I posted was of 1 simple cut on a solid model in X7 verify and saved as an STL with the precision turned all the way up and STL save tolerance set to .001

 

So what you are saying that when I machine a 240.00 inch x 48.00 inch part all I have to do is spend my whole day accurate zooming every 4 square inches of my part so that I can see accurate cut quality. I would like to know if you actually program parts for a living. I do and I don't have the time to be accuarate zooming all my parts. All I am asking is why can there not be a better initial cut quality in Verify where I don't have to use the accurate zoom. Some of the parts I have programmed in X6 looked crystal clear and when I verify in X7 look like blobs of clay. I guess you guys don't get it. Maybe this working fine for a small group of individuals but I don't believe there is any smoke you can blow that will convince everyone that this is the way it should be.

[Aaron Eberhard]

The thumbnail I posted was of 1 simple cut on a solid model in X7 verify and saved as an STL with the precision turned all the way up and STL save tolerance set to .001

 

So what you are saying that when I machine a 240.00 inch x 48.00 inch part all I have to do is spend my whole day accurate zooming every 4 square inches of my part so that I can see accurate cut quality. I would like to know if you actually program parts for a living. I do and I don't have the time to be accuarate zooming all my parts. All I am asking is why can there not be a better initial cut quality in Verify where I don't have to use the accurate zoom. Some of the parts I have programmed in X6 looked crystal clear and when I verify in X7 look like blobs of clay. I guess you guys don't get it. Maybe this working fine for a small group of individuals but I don't believe there is any smoke you can blow that will convince everyone that this is the way it should be.

 

Do you use the Stock Model feature? That will give you an accurate model of your cut (well, as accurate as you set the parameters to, anyway), and should be used for cut quality verification.

 

Use the new Simulator (Verify) to make sure the tool is going where you want, there's no collisions, etc.

 

The reason that old verify would choke on large assemblies or fine toolpaths was because it tried to show every scallop detail in a super-fine (dependent on specified quality, of course) mesh (in addition to only being a 32bit, single core application). That made ridiculously large verifications that were way overkill for 99% of the needs (What is this cut going to do?).

 

Now there's tools available that are better at each individual thing that the old Verify did. Think of it as a team. If you want a super-accurate model you can use to drive other toolpaths, check the cut quality of a fillet, or export as an STL, make a stock model. It's multi-threaded and 64 bit. If you want to see the tool motion and how toolpaths are going to overlap and cover the area, use Simulator. Either one will process in the background while you do more work, and either one is better at the individual task than the old Verify.

[CamMan1]

Sounds to me like I am going to have to do more work and use more tools which is not what I am after. We are a very quick turnaround shop and speed is of the essence. I get a model in the morning spend a few minutes coming up with a roughing routine and it is on the machine and running while I am programming finishing paths. Sorry to tell you but the old verify suited my needs much better than the methods that you are explaining. I don' have the time to wait for stock models to gen and when I have used them before I have had nothing but problems such as freezes and crashes. If I make one small chenge in a toolpath associated with a stock model than I have to Regen and sometimes it is a domino effect. Like I said maybe there is a group of people who are happy with this direction but you will be hard pressed to convince me.

[cobra95kev]

I understand CNC's thinking on this and it sounds reasonable, the only problem I have with it is that stock model, last time I used it chokes on larger parts with multiple operations. If they can fix that I will be all over it.

 

Thanks,

Kevin C.

[Aaron Eberhard]

I understand CNC's thinking on this and it sounds reasonable, the only problem I have with it is that stock model, last time I used it chokes on larger parts with multiple operations. If they can fix that I will be all over it.

 

Thanks,

Kevin C.

 

Kevin - Make sure you give it a shot in X7, there have been a lot of (under the hood) improvements to it.

 

One thing I have a habit of doing is doing multiple stock models, so I get an incremental workflow though the process, letting me see a few toolpath changes at a time. The other benefit of this is less overall processing that has to be done in one chunk, so it will process faster. This is what I used to have to do with old verify to get any larger multiaxis toolpaths toolpath files to verify in a timely manner, this'll just do it faster and more accurate than old verify could.

 

And have lots of RAM. Stock model thrives on a machine with a lot of memory. Luckily, RAM is cheap Now that Mastercam is pretty much completely 64 bit and multi-cored, you're going to eat RAM like it's cookies. I've maxed out my 16gb doing stock model regen while I was processing Dynamic (Opti) toolpaths on large models, and verifying cuts in the Simulator, and I was still able to keep working in Mcam while this was all going on.

[Aaron Eberhard]

Sounds to me like I am going to have to do more work and use more tools which is not what I am after. We are a very quick turnaround shop and speed is of the essence. I get a model in the morning spend a few minutes coming up with a roughing routine and it is on the machine and running while I am programming finishing paths.

 

....

 

Sounds like you're the perfect customer for being able to generate stock models while you keep working on the next step? Although it's one extra utility, you really sound like you'll benefit from have everything able to be run simultaneously. Make sure you've got (at least) dual monitors, and lots of RAM, and you should be more productive than you've ever been before.

[CamMan1]

You are really quite the optimistic Spin-Doctor. I guess you just don't want to see my point period. I want to be able to see my cuts in verify in progress and have them somewhat resemble a cut that an endmill would make. What was the point in even giving us verification if you don't want us to use it for model comparison. It can't be for collision checking because as chunky as the verification is how can it tell where the part is to the holder. Why even have the compare function in verify? Why don't you leave that out and tell everyone they need to use stock model for comparison from now on. And as for using the stock model in the back ground while still programming thats a good one. Most of the the time I have to wait for the stock model to gen before continuing because my PC is choking. And it has nothing to do with horsepower because I am running dual 3.07GHZ Xeons with 24 Gigs of Memory./

[RayD]

Stock Model is amazing I use it all the time, I too will do mini models after 1 or 2 toolpaths, but until it supports Transformed paths properly it still falls flat on its face more than it should.. STL is still needed

 

I have a Crazy complex part that required STL's, Stock model would crash repeatedly, i should dig it up and try it in X7