Now with every CAM software offering Machine simulation with accurate collision verification, there is no need of seperate CAV software. As we understand, CAM simulates NCI data and CAV simulates G-code just like controller. But I have not faced any situation, where CAM simulation missed a collision, even in a complicated 5 axis machining with close clearance for collision. May be the post processor became robust over the years and that's why I feel a seperate CAV is no more required. However, now CAV softwares are moving to next level of toolpath optimization for optimising force, power and tool deflection. This will definitely help especially in hard metal machining. Along with this feature, a tailor made post processor to take advantage all the features of controller like subprograms/macros, tool life mangement, etc., will make the CAV more relevant in today's scenario. Additional note: It also seems that NCsimul also supports Force optimization, like vericut, as you can see in the following link:

With the post processor? & What is your machine? Please share your feedback here after the trial.

Hello everyone! How valid are these discussions at present (2021)? NCsimul & Camplete offers both Post processor & machine simulation. Vericut offers only machine simulation but offers Force optimization modules. So how is the comparison NCsimul vs Vericut vs Camplete now?

Thank you! Thans for the suggestions! But I like to understand how it is estimated! Is there any thumb rule for the estimation? Like, From Emuge Franken tool data, for Ni alloy, I could see or relate that the FPT (mm/min) is 0.5% of Tool diameter. One thing what I found in another forum is that the FPT should be great than Cutting edge nose radius.

Thank you very much Rocketmachinist! In the 2nd method you explained, by 'center of rotation' do you mean 'center of rotating axes'? In 5 axis machines there are 2 rotating axes and which one is used in this method and how this center value is used?

In case of unavailability of tool manufacturer's cutting data, is there any way to calculate Feed per tooth (FPT) or Chip thickness from 'Tool Geomtery'? All my internet search refers to FPT formula with respect to Feed rate. But I am looking for FPT formula which is independent of Feed rate. Thank you.

In my DMG mori DMU70 with Siemens 840d controller, I could move the fixture and still run the same program even without using RTCP/TRAORI (but with the use of Cycle800). Am I missing something?

Thanks for the link Rocketmachinist! So in simple terms, in RTCP mode, the WCS or G54 is attached to the Part & move with it, instead of getting fixed to the machine or space. Is that all or anything more to it?

Hello everyone! Can somebody please explain what is the use of RTCP for MACHINING? After a little search, I understood that RTCP simplifies the Post processor calculations by allowing to consider only one vertical tool offset, instead of calculating offset at every inclined angle. But this seems to be an advantage only to those who write post-processing codes. As for programming is considered, we know that there is no advantage / change for RTCP. As person who does only programming and machining, I like to know what advantage the RTCP offers? Some people says that the RTCP allows us to mount the part arbitrarily instead of exact center of table. But even without RTCP, the program will run from the define part center (G54) & not from the table center right? Thank you!

Hello everyone, I am trying a rotational Toolpath transform for a 3 axis toolpath in a 5 axis table-table machine. I am expecting only tool movement to machine all the transformed features, but in my case the table (c axis) rotates to machine the transformed features. Even though the results are same, I like to lock my table (since the tranform is only vertical 3 axis) and machine the transformed operations using only tool movement. Is there any way to do this? Thank you.

Is it possible to "define" a point for entry? I have a condition where more than one hole exists. The extra holes are for corner relief in Inconel machining. Is it possible to select the hole for entry, just like in the case 2D Pocketing by defining points?

Why does the Multiaxis Port dynamic roughing supports only Spherical/Lolipop cutter? The reach may be better with Lolipop cutters, but generally we use Lolipop only for finishing and we use End mill with corner radius / Bull nose end mill for roughing, especially for hard materials. Is there any work around if we want to use Port dynamic rough with End mill? If not, can we expect more tools support for Port dynamic roughing in the upcoming version? Thank you.

It is really an useful and easy feature whenever we create 5 axis toolpath for varying angled or twisted walls like blades. Without this feature it would be difficult to have a good tool axis control using chain, point or method. For such walls , I adapted the following procedure instead of creating all vectors manually for tool axis control: 1. I generate the Swarf toolpath for the varying angle or twisted Walls (even if it is not a Ruled wall, by using only top & bottom chain) 2. Display and Save the Vectors of the Swarf toolpath using backplot option. 3. Now in the new toolpath operation, just pick the required vectors which was saved from the Swarf toolpath. 4. Add tilt angle, say 30 degree, by which the tool axis will be tilted by 30 degree for all vector selected. 5. If required modify or adjust some vectors. I tried this method for complex walls and it's very much less time consuming. Thank you.

Yes I am very much in touch with my dealer and here I just put up for discussion. Yes Blade expert gives a smooth motion for both Impeller & blisk, but not trochoidal tool path. Thanks!

Just to add up.. Here I attached a blisk image with high twist blade. As you can see, here tool normal to floor logic will not help much. Thank you! starrag-nb-blisk-1 (1).jpg,p59

Sorry for confusion! Impeller and Blisks belongs to same family (Turbomachinery parts), which can be geometrically characterized as 'Open Channels' and so I used it interchangeably. I didn't get any online video on Esprit Impeller trochoidal roughing, however here is a short video on the same using Powermill CAM Thank you!

I didn't mention 'unreachable area'! I mentioned that 'stock under twisted portion of the blade', which are approachable, but just not possible to approach with Normal to floor logic. It is too difficult to mill a Inconel impeller or blisk, without using trochoidal strategy! I programmed and machined several such Inconel blisk and impeller using 5 axis channel rough tool of Esprit CAM. It always gives uniform leftover stock over the blade surfaces which eliminates the need of any semi finish or extra operations. It is just like a Peel Mill option of MC, but instead of using 2 chains, it uses 2 surfaces! Please check this link for a short video on this: I am sure that it doesn't use floor for the orientation but uses the walls for the orientation! Because I used False WALLS to manipulate orientation (just like in the other post where Dylan mentioned about using the False floor to manipulate the tool orientation in MC). I am new to MC and our products are mostly blisks and impellers only! Hence trying to understand the related tools and work arounds. Thank you!

Hello everyone! Is it possible to do Dynamic roughing of Impeller with twisted blades, which would result in uniform remaining stock, using Multiaxis Pocketing operation? A reply by @Aaron Eberhard - CNC Software in the mentioned link, explains that undercut is not possible with the dynamic option of Multiaxis Pocketing operation. Does the stock under twisted portion of the blade would be considered as undercut and left un-machined? In that case, is it right to say that the Multiaxis Pocketing operation with dynamic option can be used only 'when the tool can reach all the stock by remaining normal to the floor' ?? Thank you!

Is there any advantage of using 'Optirough toolpath' over 'Triangular mesh toothpath' (when we have 5axis license)? The 'Triangular mesh' toolpath have the 'trochoidal roughing' option and in addition it has the ability to output both 3 axis and 5 axis codes. So is there any good reason to prefer Optirough over 'Triangular mesh' toolpath? Thank you!

Exactly that's what Emuge Franken tool vendor suggested! Such tools for Nickel alloys are very costly!

Yes! But for the Peel mill, the 2 chains should be in a plane right?! I think in this case, the edges/chains are located on a circumference (3D). Thank you!

What is the right toolpath/operation in MC, to carry out trochoidal milling of Turbine fir tree using form tool? Please check the following video for the milling process: Is Peel mill a right option? Should the top or bottom edges be considered for the chaining? Thanks!

How to use Containment boundary for 3D Plunge mill? It is by default inactive. Is there any condition at which it will become active? Thank you

How to create and use Lathe groove tool with multiple inserts /tooth like the one shown below: We use such custom made groove tools for making Piston seal grooves and Labyrinth seal grooves. Is it possible to program this in MC2022? I could create the custom tool, but I couldn't create the toolpath successfully. Also, I am unsure about the correct usage of tool compensation and tool center for multiple insert tool. Any insight into this is much appreciated! Thanks!

Hello everyone! As everyone knows, we can create/set planes from the current view in graphics using Gview option, to create 3+2 / Auto 3+2 operations. When we create the plane from view, it may be roatated around in any/all the axes. If the rotation of the view consists of an axis, which my machine doesn't support, then how does MC calculates the angle when I used that plane for 3+2 milling operations? For example, if my view consists of rotation around x-axis (that is A angle), but my machine is B-C configuration, then what orientation is considered by the MC for generating toolpath? Thank you!