Backup here.  Is your post configured such that the tool number it outputs is actually derived from the dia. offset number for each operation?  That seems an odd way to handle that...

In my head it should be tool number is what you call during tool change, and then length and dia offset are slaved together since I assume you're storing offset geo as the same number on the machine.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why would you need a diameter offset posted for canned drill cycle?

2 hours ago, JB7280 said:

Really for no other reason than the fact that I didn't want to add another tool just for that one feature.  Also, the feature is inside of a pocket, so there are some limitations regarding reach.  I edited the model, to just leave the feature I was asking a question about.  However, as to your comment about using an essentially on size tool, that is creating a different issue, since I didn't anticipate the "cone" it's leaving on the .251" diameter floor.  So I'll have to do something else. 

 

Garr has a 3.8" endmill with a .060" corner rad, so I think I'll just go that route.    I had thought about that, but we don't get enough money for these parts to warrant a special tool.  Garr having one on the shelf makes it make a whole lot more sense.  

 

Edit - Actually, scratch that.  That's gonna have the same dish on the floor unless I have one made with a flat bottom.  D'oh.

What Crazy was suggesting is to mill the "floor" of that feature with a small tool and then come in with an endmill that has the .062" corner rads and plunge in to finish the walls/corner rads.

I assume you're trying to avoid doing that to save a tool change?

Here is some code that is running on a Yasda H40i

N1(T13019600: 5mm 2Flt Ball TaperNeck AlTiN)
T13019600
M06
G49G53Z.0
M302(Semi Finish Machining Mode)
G5P10000
S12650M03
M11M71

G00G90G54B4.125C90.0
G68.2 X0.0 Y0.0 Z0.0 I180.0 J4.125 K-90.0
G53.1
X.00751Y11.66382B4.125C90.0
G69
M08M51M44
(G43.4 Note: Absolute Z Approach Move)
G43.4Z3.63437H400
(G43.4 Note: TCP Coordinates Active)
X-11.66382Y.22389Z3.0
Z-1.05819
Y.18073Z-1.65663

Parameter #5006.6 is set to 1 for me right now

Happy to help.  I think you're probably at the same knowledge level I am as far as the Reports Designer goes.  I never got past the "just modify an existing one" stage.

I'm fairly lost when it comes to setting up new sheets in active reports since I've got mine setup the way I like.

It appears the default setup sheet (mill) report has FPT displayed. You might be able to track down how they did by going through that one?

In the -Setup Sheet (MILL-TOOL) rpx file, they have FPT datafield listed as OTI-FPT. Maybe try that?

1 minute ago, JParis said:

Unfortunately, most of these kinds of decisions are based on $$$ instead of the things you note.

Too true. Another thing is availability. You could be purchasing the most ballin machine for your part, but if it's a 10 month factory build....

Just now, jas6142 said:

How do you find hermle's service to be?  yeah the automation layout  isnt my favorite either.

Lol, I posted a follow up at the same time as this.  It has been pretty excellent for us.  I think it took 1 guy about 2 days to commission the c400 which is fairly impressive IMO

I currently program and run a Yasda H40i with a 24 pallet pool.  Works well and we got at a very competitive price.  I find their software to be extremely lacking.

Makino has MAS-A5 software which is an extremely powerful production management tool.  Currently working with our local reseller to get a quote for a A61nx/A500z pallet pool line for a large upcoming project and very excited about.

Matsuura has been doing automated 5 axis forever.

I have personal experience with Hermles and they make a stout machine and have good service.  All of their machines are essentially the same, so any of their service techs can work on all of their lineup.

Okuma is probably the best bang for the buck MTB.  I would say they're almost as good as all of the others on the list, but they make up for it by also being insanely reliable and long lasting.  Not to say the others aren't tho....

I would agree that Hermles spindles is their weakspot. I'm not a fan of greased spindles and moving to their higher RPM air oil spindles loses alot of power.  Unfortunately, I can't compare their performance vs high performance as we don't have one of their high performance lines.  I also am not a huge fan of their automation as it's thru the main cabin door which kind of sucks from an ergonomics stand point.

If I had to pick my favorite MTBs right now, it would be Yasda, Makino, Matsuura, Hermle, and Okuma.  I think they all have their pros and cons and you just need to figure out which ones you prefer and which ones does the work you need it to do the best.

Here are some links to a couple of previous topics regarding this subject

New 5axis machine questions

New 5x mills

The DMU 50 and C400 are very different beasts as far as workspace and floor space.  Are you guys considering getting both at the same time or comparing one against the other.

IDK much about the DMU but previously Mori's service here in the Midwest has been lackluster.

We have a C400 without automation and it's been a good/accurate machine.  But it really hasn't been pushed hard for production work.  I recall a previous quote for a C42 with a pallet pool being pretty ludicrously expensive compared to other options.

You should be able to pull the Feed per tooth straight from the Mastercam operation.

8 minutes ago, metalmansteve said:

Been using Jergens Ball-Lock system for 20+ years.  

I've bought their subplates, made my own but most recently had Saunders make me a custom plate with their grid + a pattern of Jergens ball locks.  Very happy with it.

 

I personally think this is the better way to go.  It requires a bit of forethought how you want it arranged. But it allows quite alot of flexibility with the grid and also just swapping out to a different plate if the first one isn't what you like. Definitely more expensive tho...

1 hour ago, volitan71 said:

Just talking to another machinist in the company, he suggests putting bushings right in to the table. 

I didn't like the idea at first, spent so many years trying to not drill into a table, but the more I think about it I like it.

Just don't overshoot the tolerance...

That's the sketchiest part of machining the bushings into the table IMO.  You only get 1 chance to get it right.

So, funny story.  I basically copied/adapted Saunders plates for my own purposes.  And then I clamp a vise on top of it as needed.

A previous shop I was at, we bored the flanges of the vise to accept the ball lock and just mounted the vise directly to the table that way.

I think Orange Vise uses something similar, but they ball lock in the center of the bed?

Per Jergens catalog, a single 20mm shank ball lock has 3000 lbs of hold down force and you always run 2 or more. So, I would say they are plenty good for 99% of applications.  If you're exceeding 6000 pounds of tool pressure, you're on a much more substantial machine than I am and I pray for your holders lol

Ball locks is how I like to do it.

Either make a sub plate that has a pattern or even machine them straight into your table. I have seen it done both ways.

Saunders I think still does custom plates as well, so if you have something specific he might be able to accommodate.

He's also coming out with his own zero point quick change system that integrates with his subplates. Might be interesting for you if you use alot of fixtures

9 hours ago, tornero32 said:

Sorry about that. I'm off work for the rest of the week so I won't be able to send you a file until Monday. I could make a short vide if you are interested.

I'm not 100% sure if that's what you really need but it may help.

 

No need.  I had honestly forgotten about Triangular Mesh since Unified Came out.  Might be time to take another look at it since it has some different pattern options...

3 hours ago, tornero32 said:

I learned this toolpath here and it works great. Triangular mesh. you have an open book of options.

3D High speed Equal scallop works as well. both toolpaths are in the file, take a look and modify as you need it.

Roughing Test.emcam 2.7 MB · 5 downloads

Apparently, "Industrial" licenses can't open "Educational" files.  Any way to convert that?

On 3/30/2024 at 11:06 PM, crazy^millman said:

#1 you provided a file thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surface finish contour with bottom up?

Not a bad suggestion, but the Surface Contour gets weird with the stepovers as it gets towards the apex of the cylinder.  I think Aaron's suggestion with Morph is the way to go here.  Although, seeing how Surface Contour works, I may have uses for it on another part....

Clutch! Thanks!

Just want to know if there is a surfacing path that allows me to climb cut, but go both directions.  I can get a toolpath to zig-zag both ways easy. And I can get a path that rapids the full length of the part over and over again.  What I would like is for it to cut one way, jump to the other side, then cut its way back.  Is this possible?  I'm in MCAM 2024 with all 3D toolpaths and 5 axis paths available.  This is just a segment of what I am cutting.  There are other avoidance geometries that aren't shown in the other segments. So, whatever path I use needs to be able to avoid geometry.

Thanks!

Roughing Test.mcam

48 minutes ago, gcode said:

We done this with a couple of old Mitsubishi HMC's that have pallets.

It works just fine...

As an added bonus, our maintenance people can build a new cable and rewire the rotary table with their eyes closed because they've done it so many times.

At least once a year someone doesn't check the cables before calling up a pallet change.

The rotary table's cables lose that fight every time.

So, were you guys disconnecting the cables every pallet change?

Hi All,

I'm looking into the feasibility of putting one of our 4th axis units onto our Midaco Pallet Changer.  The only hang up is having to remember to connect/disconnect it during pallet change.  I know that this is kind of a half baked solution and not a good substitute for a more dedicated machine like a horizontal. But I'm trying to maximize the capabilities of the machines/equipment we have on hand.

I am thinking though, if one were to get a long enough cord, you could just keep it wired in.  Maybe get clever with wire management.

Has anyone done anything like this? Google search shows Midaco has their own way where they keep the rotary in the machine and then have it interface with the "tombstone" as it gets shuffled in.  Trying not to spend more money if I don't have to.  I already have a 4th axis from a previous machine and a trunnion table sitting on a shelf.

16 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

On the other hand, I did have a customer that wanted each Op as a separate file...

Lol, this is how 99% of the people at my place of work do it.  I think it's an old school holdover from when our computers were not as powerful and nobody sees any reason to change.

I was in the same boat as you guy's using 1 machine group to program a part start to finish.  For the same reasons, I liked sharing 1 tool library for a part.

But I have been dabbling with using the machine group setups and it is nice selecting a "master model" for each op and stock setup/fixturing for each op.  The tool library hasn't been AS important as I thought since I have large magazine and I just program all my parts with the same tools.  I think I am probably just fortunate that way.

Like Millman said, we all need to be exposed to all the different ways of doing something and figure out the way that works best for us.

2 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek - Singularity said:

If you want something more affordable and don't mind buying Chinese:

https://warwicktools.en.alibaba.com/productgrouplist-917314015/Pneumatic_clamping_system.html

I think Haas might re-badge some of these and double the price.

 

Hmm, looks the same as the Gimbel too.  Warwick does say they offer custom badging.

Yes. The guy who runs Gimbel Auto all but confirmed on a podcast that Haas and him buy the same ones and then Re-badge em....

I couldn't remember where they got em, but I am like 99% certain it is the ones you linked

https://gimbelautomation.com/pages/pneumatic-vises

https://www.haascnc.com/haas-tooling/mill_workholding/self-centering_vises.html?op=/haas-tooling.html&oh=mill-workholding

These are basically the same vises