Also, the cutting tool is an assembly so I brought in the cutter only and that didn't help.

Hi Bob,

 

Can you share a file? Pretty difficult to diagnose any toolpath issue without one...

 

You said "reassign geometry to a proven path". <<<< What proven path? Was it originally a path done in X9 from scratch, or are you taking a path from previous version of Mastercam, and updating it?

 

Are you using "check" geometry? Try going into the "Check" selection, and just make sure you "clear" everything out.

 

What about Containment Boundaries? Are you using one? Do you have more than one?

 

Whenever I encounter something "weird" like this, I usually take a couple screen shots of the toolpath parameter settings, and then create a new operation from scratch, while trying to match the previous operation settings.

 

Also, when was the last time you restarted your computer? Have you run RAM-Saver recently? Are you running more than one session of Mastercam at a time?

 

Thanks,

 

Colin

Hi Colin,

Restarting Mastercam didn't help.  Pretty simple toolpath really.  It was created in X8 on a previous mold.  No check geometry, everything is drive with one containment boundary.  It is acting like there is a .25" safety zone around the vertical feature.  It is a post surrounded by an injection runner and I have literally made a hundred of these in the past.  Made a new toolpath in X9 and same problem.  I am also running solide and all geometry selected is solids other than the containment boundary.  Restarted my computer about 20 minutes ago...

Did you have the collision avoidance enabled on the tool holder page?

No.

I got it working by deselecting the post geometry and using full vertical retract.  This sucks because it is going to be herky jerky on the machine and it has 100 retracts instead of a butter smooth toolpath with feed transitions.   #$&^#$!!!  This crap is annoying!

I am machining a mold that has a flat region with a post in the center as I have done many times in the past and I am having issues with X9.  This is no-brainer stuff and all I am doing is reassigning new geometry to a proven toolpath.  It seems to want to add extra tool shank clearance around the post???  How do I turn this off?  is it a bug?  I have looked everywhere in the operation menus and nothing jumps out at me.  This is for all of the 3D HST toolpaths from what I can tell and it is extremely frustrating.  Programming this part should have taken 20 minutes plus 10 for regeneration.  These few toolpaths alone have taken longer than that...

Yes, microphone. I was just trying to be funny. I always treat tools like the precision instruments they are. Although, from some of your stories about workers you've hired, I'm not surprised you asked...

I know the saying and the visual.  it was funny though when you wrote it the first visual that popped into my head was you holding a micrometer out and doing the drill and I was like "NOOOOOOO!".  Then I visualized doing a sliding catch...  I've been in the shop too long I think.

Boom! (Drops mic, and walks away...)

 

Microphone, not micrometer, right?  Thinking of a micrometer getting dropped gives me the heeebeejeebies... 

Bob,

 

Does the data have to live inside the Cell Control Tool Library? Why not just use Vericut exclusively to manage the tool data? I get that you want your operators to be able to bring up the tool definition rapidly, but why not just have them pull it up in the Vericut Tool Library?

 

If you look in the \VERICUT 7.3.4\windows64\commands folder, there are "short-cut" links. One of them is for "Shortcut to Toolman 64 7.3.4". This is the Vericut Tool Manager, and can be launched outside of Vericut. So your operator could pull up any tool, in the Vericut Tool Library, without having to Launch Vericut itself. It would also be one less data source to maintain...

This would actually work really well.  How do I point that shortcut to my specific tool library when it opens?  Right now it only opens the tool manager with no library, I have to hunt for that and open it within the tool manager.

Is there a reason you aren't using the MCX interface for Vericut?  This would negate the fear of pulling a MCX report and not trusting that is matches Vericut?

Yes, Vericut is the master because it never gets touched and it is rock solid.  I know the information for tool three will be the same in Vericut as it was last year or the year before.  I know a programmer didn't tweak the length to suit his needs to make it work.  Once a tool is put into a machine it might reside there for months and it will not be re-checked or reset during that time.  I need the confidence that the simulations will be valid and not be based on a tool library that may have been tweaked.  Vericut is to my tool library what the North Star was to navigators 200 years ago.

Just to clarify, I want to generate one page reports, per tool, that can be imported into the Makino MAS A5 cell control tool library.  This way, if the operators have a question about tool geometry they can pull it up at any of the cell control terminals that will be scattered about the shop (Tool crib, machine, work set station, etc...)

Hi Bob,

 

The Vericut Tool Library is coded in XML format. It should be pretty simple to whip up some kind of Script file to generate the data you are looking for. The biggest issue will be in creating the 2D drawing information. It will also really depend on how you create/import the data into Vericut. (STL vs. PLY vs. SOR). Vericut obviously has a method for creating a 2D profile drawing, no matter what underlying data source is being used...

 

Personally, I'd look into TclXML, but I'm probably biased, because TCL is fast becoming my "go to" programming language...

Maybe a script is the way to go.  I could simply send the data to a text file and not include the drawings or graphic view, then as time permits add the graphics later.  Maybe Excel, pictures can be added to Excel files pretty easily I believe.

Right, I have Vericut and love the tool lists but this is for the library within the cell system.  We can have up to 10 functioning cell terminals active in the shop and an employee can open the MAS-A5 tool library and each tool has an information file tied to it.  This file can be anything I specify (Word doc, pdf, Jpeg, photo, etc...) and when looking at the functional tool it can be opened with one click.  The Mas A5 will track ALL tools whether measured and in the crib, in the machine, or just in the library.  We have 730 tools in our Mastercam library currently so I'd like to come up with an efficient way to create these information files.  They will be very handy once done but could potentially take months to create.

I am in the process of populating the tool library on the Makino MMC2 and I was curious how people do set the information file, format, etc....  Ideally there would be tool information (cutter, holder, stick out) with a graphic view (CAD or photo) of the configuration.  I'd love to hear what people have done, seen, or worked with that worked well and didn't take months to get in place.  Vericut is my current master tool library but there isn't a simple way to export a report of a single tool.  Vericut runs the simulations so I know the tool reports generated by it are 100%.  I am hesitant to export reports from Mastercam due to possible mismatch, etc...  This will be used for operator reference on the floor since there will be several terminals throughout the shop (machine, WSS, tool crib, office, etc...).  Here are the fields I'd like to cover in the information files:

Cutter description

Cutter part number

Cutter stick out

Holder description

Holder part number

Coolant style (TSC, Flood, air, etc...)

Looks like a Remington 700, or 700 based action.  What about going in 5-axis with a ~.040" ball mill.  You aren't removing that much material and I don't think the 0.020" fillets would hurt anything.  If anything they would increase the fatigue life because that is a bad area to have sharp inside corners.

With the .1" offset I should have seen a posted drill depth of -.1" at B90 and +.1" and B-90.  I was drilling to Z0.0 in the Mastercam operation.

Did you enable 'r_intersect'? Try setting that to '1' and see if the output changes...

I did and the output did changed but it still wasn't right.  I had the drilling at B90, B-90, and C0, 90, 180, and -90.  The shift results should have shown up as depth variations in Z (drill depth) only but it was shifting in X as well.

I have been playing around with those parameters and they don't seem to be working for my setup.  I adjust the X parameter (saxisx) and when the B-axis is rotated 90 degrees the machine is comping in the X direction.  Here is an example:

There is a point 3.0" above the WCS and I enter a shift value of .1 in saxisx.  I drill it at B0, then index B 90 degrees and drill it at B90.  When the table is indexed at B90 the spindle positions at X2.9, not X3.0 where it should be. 

I have played with all of the settings to see if I can make it work with no luck.  Maybe I misunderstand how this functions?  I thought it could account for an offset between the B-axis (4th) and C-axis (5th).  In my example I had set the offset to .1" in the X direction.  This is for my HMC with a rotary on it.  The B-axis runs in the Y direction and at B0.0 the C-axis runs in the Z direction.

GUILTY!!! Oh wait, oops...  Welcome to the forum

I was hoping this would be fixed for X9 but it doesn't appear to be.  When saving a stock model to STL (toolpaths: stock model export to STL) for importing to Vericut it will still not reference 'current WCS' in the save-as options box.  It keeps referencing the top WCS so when I bring it into Vericut it is off in left field.  Anyone find a way around this?

We still run the a61's (Makino's with the lock/unlock unless the path is full 4, but the a51's and a82 are running unlocked all the time.  Those machines run only aluminum so while you can still pull some horses it would be more concerning if we were running something tougher.  The a51's and a82 are 5-axis with a Koma rotary.

 

So when you switched to running locked on roughing, did you set this up in Misc Integers or hand edit?  We have changed the posts for the conditions we want, which in the case of the a61's is all the time except full 4 motion.

I just hard coded it in my posts.  I think the best method would be for the post to detect the nature of the toolpath and control the lock/ unlock automatically.  That would be the best of both worlds.  How difficult would it be to detect the following toolpaths and set them to lock and leave everything else open?

Opti-rough

Opti-rest

2D HST - dynamic, peel, etc...

3D HST area clearance

Facing

Ones left off would be drilling, tapping, contouring, standard pocketing, surfacing, etc...  I know on my machines it would be a time saver to not always lock and like MKD pointed out, it would suck to wear out a seal and have a machine down.

I don't know why shops keep these expensive guys around.  If you drop the feeds by 20% you just dropped the machine's productivity by 20% and that is EXPENSIVE!  Just as expensive as the guy that lets the machine run at 100% but then lets it sit for 25 minutes between cycles on a two hour part.  Makes a Makino as productive as a Haas...

On my Okuma I had an operator that liked to mess with the overrides. He ran 2nd shift on a couple of production jobs, and I kept wondering why his part count was so low.

After I locked out the override switches with M codes in the program, his part count soared.  

Hey, but he has better spindle utilization (fewer cycles = less down time due to part change out) with half the effort. 

Another thing; for all of our 4-axis we had (still are) spitting out the M10/M11 all the time except full four movement.  Going to 5-axis we picked up a post from a sister company and they were running unlocked all the time.  When we talked to Makino about it they swear there is more torque when running unlocked and they recommend just running unlocked all the time.  Anyone have input one way or the other on that?  All the 5-axis are rotary/rotary.

Are these direct drive?  If so DO NOT run unlocked.  When the DD can't handle the torque (roughing) it simply lets go completely.  Ask me how I know...  I took their advice and had it let go twice in two weeks and I changed back.  It was a huge mistake and scrapped an expensive indexable cutter in the process.  If you run high speed machining and put any load on the machine you are playing with fire if you run unlocked.

Will you be using RFID tool ID tags of any type? Crib software such as TDM or Cribmaster?

If so, you will prolly want to start there, to easily integrate those into your scheme. You may already be using something that will translate to 8 digits fairly readily.

If not, try to make it expandable, as Ron says. You can include stuff like custom tools, shape, type, material, job, ITN, mfg., etc. Just make sure it works how YOU work.

 

Edit:

Maybe contact Toby wood at Makino for his ideas on what others with the controllers are using.

I'll PM you his email.

No RFID but I do use Western Tool's FTS for tool storage which is pretty similar to Cribmaster.  I got the PM and will send Toby an email as soon as I can get my head above water.

Thanks for the input.  You are right, the FTN is not globally unique on the machine.  Right now we use duplicate tools on the machine but the machine tracks them so we don't use ITN.  The cell controller needs ITN however and that is the basis for the change.  I like your idea of adding the 5th digit to define the ITN as in the second example or tool 2015.  This would be very easy to implement and wouldn't change our tool libraries at all since ITN only needs to be done on the machine, not in Mastercam.  One thing I just thought of is if we renumber our tools we will need to change every tool in every program and that would be a huge project.  Great ideas though and I'll keep noodling them over.

Hi Bob,

 

Take a look at the function 'plcval' in the post documentation. This function can read the value of a "place digit", either left or right of the decimal. (Input is a string value that holds a "number" like 123.456).

 

Using that function, it is easy to extract the "value" of each digit. So that way you can setup your post to "trigger" the correct output you want, based on the setting contained inside the 8 digit number. (Technically your "number" as a "string", would just wind up having the decimal place at the end of the string...)

Thanks for the info.  Have you ever heard of tool numbers being used like this?