With the overhead robot I would run the tombstones at B90 and B-90 only. It could easily load those two sides with no indexing.

We also got a quote for the M710 and it was in line with this.

That was quoted new, direct from Fanuc. My thoughts with the LR mate is it would only be loading fixtures, not the machine. The larger robot would be shuttling fixtures to the machine and loading them. I like the LR Mate because its speed and accuracy. For the quoted price of the LR Mate i plan to buy one and see if we can get it to load fixtures reliably. I'd just park it in the corner out of the way and play around with it to see what we could do. If nothing else we could get it to deburr parts or something...

For us to get 24/7 performance out of a pallet system we would need to dedicate several pallets to a project and make several fixtures as well. This doesn't lend itself to leaving jobs staged and after all is said and done there is a huge amount of setup and tear down which kind of goes against why I was interested in a pallet system in the first place.With just dedicating 1-2 pallets to a job the machine will only run for an hour or two after closing time at best, given the mix of parts we do. Then there is the issue of loading the wrong stock, loading parts backwards, etc... In my experience if it can be screwed up it WILL get screwed up sooner or later, just a matter of time. I like the thought of a robot sitting there loading stock all day to .001" and never screwing up or loading it incorrectly but maybe this is just a pipe dream. Robotics would be a long term direction we would take and build our processes around much like we did when moving to horizontal machines years ago. Projects would be quoted and processes designed with robotics in mind and they would largely dictate how things were done and setup. I don't have a crystal ball however so it is hard to anticipate the challenges or issues. It definitely wouldn't happen in a day, or month though. It would take over a year to get going on this. Another issue is the cost. I recently had a few cells quoted and they came back at between $850k and $1.4M. One of these cells would allow integrating our rotary for 5-axis machining via and auto connect and the less expensive cell would not. The hardware for the robotic system is less than $200k but the integration would be very challenging. It would not only have the ability to serve the horizontals in 4 or 5-axis configuration, but also the vertical in 3 or 4-axis configuration. The part loading work head issue is a big challenge to overcome though.

Also, the LR Mate has a repeatability of .0008" and goes for around $25k WITH VISION! I know integration gets spendy but these are really becoming affordable. In the second video above picture two Makino HMCs and one Makino VMC with rotary instead of the four Robodrills. That would chew through a few pallets of material with both first AND second ops with no intervention whatsoever. Getting a system like that up and running would be a trick though but the rewards would be huge if successful.

I have long been thinking a cell system would be the ultimate setup for my shop and I have been planning to implement one for a good long time. Lately however, I have been thinking more and more about robotics and it they would be a better fit for what we do. I plan to issue a PO for a Fanuc LR Mate robot with vision later this week to get on the learning curve and see what we can do in this direction. I have two horizontals and one vertical machine so my thought is one smaller robot as seen in the first video and one larger "flying" robot on a rail above the machines as seen in the second video. The machines would be lined up in a row and the smaller robot would load fixtures with raw material and the larger robot would place fixtures in the machines. I currently have Schunk zero point clamping in one of my machines and I plan to buy two four-sided tombstones and implement these clamps on two sides of each. Loading and unloading fixtures from the machines would be completely modular (consistent interface, consistent location) and that makes the trick loading the fixtures with the smaller robot, as there is a fair amount of diversity there. My question is, has anyone seen robotics implemented as a flexible manufacturing system? I know Makino has the MMCr which is basically a robotic pallet system but there is still a human loading the pallets. It seems that robotics has typically been limited to mass production of the same part where a cell is dedicated to a family of like parts (second video) and not small volumes of diverse parts. Any thoughts on a robotic system that would be modular and agile that could be implemented in a job shop environment? Half of the equation is very easy because if the fixture interface is standard the larger robot has a very simple and limited task. Benefits to our shop as I see it are the ability to run a job until it is complete. Put a pallet of material in front of the robot and it runs until it is done whether it takes a few hours or a week, with zero human intervention. This is much like a bar feeding lathe where it just goes and goes. With the larger robot above the machines it could be parked at the end of the travel and all three run traditionally. I'd love to hear thoughts and comments.

I have to confess I never even look at the code once it is posted (never have) other than the header to make sure a pallet and B offset is specified correctly. I don't even know what most of the G-codes do other than the most common of them. I lean heavily on the Vericut to catch mistakes and they do happen, I'm definitely not immune. I spent a lot of time getting everything in Mastercam working correctly and edit-free (post, machine definition, etc...). If I am troubleshooting I toggle on display selected toolpaths and find which one corresponds to the feature I need to fix by clicking toolpaths and looking at what is displayed on the screen.

So I am curious how a comment in the operation will help that?

Yeah, I have to concede it is a bad habit that originated since I started as a one man shop and I was the operator, programmer, inspector, etc... There was never a need to communicate. Definitely something to work on. I do need to figure out how to prevent my post from posting them or fix my post so it will post them correctly. I believe I need to add a buffer but not sure how. Currently comments will get posted as code and cause alarms at the machine. It is a result of the operation trying to post multiple comments (tool comment, toolpath comment, etc...) and fixing it has been a low priority. Something to work on moving forward for sure.

The tool offset length is listed on the Vericut setup sheet and the tool checking routine consists of verifying the correct holder, correct tool, correct cutter stick out, and that the gage length exceeds the value called out by Vericut. The operators need to get this 100% correct and the rest will be fine. Vericut will ONLY create a setup sheet AFTER a simulation has been completed, otherwise it is blank. SOP, programs don't run without a Vericut setup sheet.

I guess one of the main reasons I don't write comments is due to how our processes are set up. The operator's main responsibilities is verifying that the correct tool is loaded in the spindle and performing first article inspections. We Vericut everything so the program is good and the operator typically watches the first move to make sure the offset is set correctly, then hits option stop and walks away. When the next tool comes along the operator verifies the tool, then starts the machine and walks away to do something else. One of my operators just about crapped when a tool was approaching the work piece at 5% rapid and I walked up and set the rapid to 100%. I knew the tool was good and I told him we paid $xx,xxx for Vericut and that is one of the ways we get a return on the investment... The only ways we will crash a machine is if the tool is set up incorrectly, wrong setup, or the offset is not correct. Two of those are ruled out on the first move of the first tool of the program.

I use manual entry because not all of the offsets are in the same location. We use DFO and not COR so with each new program we establish the offset location based on CAD data and standard offset location tables based on the fixture, etc... Once it is set it never gets tweaked, it is good to go. Is there a better way?

Glad I could help and finally make a contribution. Another tweak I made to my horizontal posts recently was the addition of a work offset wipe macro call (G65 P9970). All of the programs that run on my horizontals have the offsets set in the program header. Before the offset is set I wipe all offsets and set them to zero. I also do it at the end of the program so if for some unexplained reason the manual entry doesn't get entered in Mastercam the machine will generate an over travel alarm because it will be trying to machine at the machine origin (X0,Y0,Z0). I try to set things up so it would take several screw ups on the same project to result in a crash. Can't have enough layers of safety and it doesn't take any extra effort or time once it is in place.

Also, I don't label my programs but I probably should. I gave my operators a seat of Mastercam on a shop floor computer (computer cart) so if they have questions they can open up the program and follow along. There are to be no edits allowed on the floor however, all edits go through the office.

fmt "#750=" 2 op_number #WDS 6/27/2015 psof op_number = opnum, e$ #WDS 6/27/2015 pbld, n$, op_number, e$ #WDS 6/27/2015 Here are the changes I made to my post. I also added it to the ptlchg0 (null tool change) and ptlchg (tool change) sections.

Sometimes if you are using the configuration manager in Solidworks you need to activate the specific configuration, then save. That is the only time I have seen this issue, when a file with multiple configurations has been changed but the individual configurations haven't been activated to accept the changes.

It is a huge help and I added that because I was tired of operators coming into my office telling me "tool 454 is chattering" but tool 454 was used in ten operations so it would take a few cycles to identify exactly where the issue was. This feature solved that and it has saved us a ton of time in troubleshooting. That is the beauty of learning to write posts. I thought of that and it was implemented on all of my machines in 20 minutes.

I have the operation number automatically posted in a comment in the NC file and I also have it set to a macro variable (#750). This way if something isn't right at the machine the operator can check what operation is currently running (via the macro variables on the machine) and write up a quick change request form with the exact operation number and the issue.

My reference was to rotating T-planes to change the posted code or how the trunnion will index, not very reliable... The misc values have been very reliable though I have only used the two to bias the primary and secondary axis.

In my experience this is not a fool proof method. Often times the post makes a lot of decisions during posting regardless of how the tool planes are set up. There were times when the tool planes showed the part being machined parallel to the x-axis in the X-Y plane but on the machine it was askew by 30 degrees or so about Z in the X-Y plane. The program ran perfectly and it was a function of how it posted and decisions the post made. That is why verification software (Vericut or similar) is important with 5-axis machining. What shows up in backplot and verify can be a whole different animal than what runs on the machine. The only fool proof method (okay, 99.9% fool proof) is the misc integers.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

IIRC there are misc integers in the Haas post that will allow biasing the primary or secondary axis to positive or negative, mi8 and mi9 I believe. If A is biased to positive it will stay put and the indexing will be handled by B only. Experiment with these to see which does the trick.

So if Mastercam botched the simulation one of these toolpaths (the 1%, or 10% chance) what would the cost be if you ended up with a scrapped part with the spindle buried in it?

One thing about simulation software to keep in mind. 99% is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO GOOD ENOUGH. Imagine if your Mastercam post worked correctly 99% of the time. How many programs do you post in a year? How much would those 1% benders cost you? This stuff has to be 99.999% accurate to be worth using and that is why Mastercam should stick to CAM. Getting to 90% or even 95% is pretty easy but getting to 99.999% is several magnitudes more difficult and resource intensive. What I love about Vericut is it is completely configurable, much like a Mastercam post. You can tweak it and dial it in so every G-code and M-code matches the machine exactly. It also simulates macros and probing routines and records the probed values in macro variables. It goes on, and on, and on... It isn't a $5k product they are gouging people on by charging $xx,xxx for because they can. It is a very comprehensive tool that not only catches crashes, it will also get every little code syntax, over travel, etc... if you spend the time and effort dialing it in. I rarely even bother simulating 3-axis parts. The meat and potatoes for NC simulation is multiaxis. Then there is more advanced multiaxis with TCP and WSEC and I don't know how Mastercam could get those working well enough to justify risking a $500k machine to the results. If they did put in that much effort they would have to give somewhere else.

I have both shrink and hydraulic and while they both work well I prefer hydraulic when clearances allow. I feel that hydraulic has better damping characteristics and produce a better finish. There have been a few instances where I pulled a chattering tool from a shrink fit holder and put it in a hydraulic holder and it cut butter smooth with the same parameters. The shrink fit holders are so dang rigid they don't dampen the vibrations much. For 5-axis where you have extended reaches and tight spots while indexing it is hard to beat shrink fit. For smaller tools with 1/8" shanks we will use a Schunk hydraulic holder with a Haimer shrink extension. At ~$600 each it is an expensive way to hold a tool but after all is said and done (Shunk holder, sleeve, Haimer extension) the run out is typically .0001" which is pretty hard to believe. Both Schunk and Haimer make grade AAA stuff.