On 6/7/2024 at 1:59 PM, pete_hull said:

thanks riverhunter. This machine is not using a specially assigned M-code, just your regular 'M6'

N24 G91 G28 Z0. W0.
N25 G28 X0.
N26 G28 B0. C0.
N27 G28 Y0.
N28 T21 M6 (T21-.375 X SC X 1FL SLOW SPIRAL ENDMILL)

 

 

On some machines it is possible to get into machine parameters and edit the actual code in the macro that is M6.  So if somebody got into that machine and made the end of the M6 have a G90, or if the machine needs to move to accommodate the tool change routine and for some reason they're calling that in absolute instead of using a G30 secondary home position, that might be your problem.

It is possible with macros, as long as you know where the part is within .4" (10mm).  You have to set some variables to compare where it should be to where it is, and then add/subtract the difference to XYZBC.  I don't have examples of code, but I have helped debug some of that code.  And I think there are parameters/code to activate the probe so if you are further than .4" it will sill work.  You will probably have to work thru one axis at a time, and then go back thru them again.  The compare is if the actual value is different from the set value (offset) by less than an acceptable amount then continue, if it is greater than the acceptable deviation then adjust.

And remember, a lot of fields allow negative values.  Stock to leave is one of them, so if you need to cut a little more to get the fit you want, you can use negative stock to leave on your finish toolpath.

I don't know if it exists in threadmill cycle, and I don't have MillTurn where I work now.  But we would mill end profiles of parts with axial live tooling and there is a checkbox in the mill cycle to use C or use Y.  

7 hours ago, gcode said:

My Voice is working for me

Maybe it's still  in beta???

 

myVoice – myMastercam

Yes, beta.  That's why some of us were surprised to learn of its existence and confused why we couldn't follow the link.

Aaron you beat me to it because I got called in to a department meeting while I was reading this.  Stock to leave was my first thought.  And since he said acrylic I was also thinking stock to leave on floor for the downcut finish pass because of the way that stuff loves to chip and pit.

Make an operation that leaves enough stock that the pits don't go into the finished material, and then copy the operation for your finish tool and set stock to leave to zero.

I'm in 2022, so maybe it's changed in the last couple versions, since the addition of the cube?  But this illustrates that it is not the same as current wcs, but top.

sorry to take this thread OT, i started a new thread for MyVoice

https://www.emastercam.com/forums/topic/108892-my-voice/

As far is 3rd-party dev, that too is a limited access forum.

a different thread got OT for a suggestion to go to “my voice” – this from my reseller:

MyVoice is not available for customers right now and is only in a testing phase for Resellers.

Mastercam did not give me a definitive rollout date for myVoice to the rest of customers, and was told we resellers would be notified by email.  If I were to venture a guess, I’d say at the soonest that myVoice will be available to customers is July 1st, which is the planned release date of Mastercam 2025.  Then again, this feature may continue to be pushed back.   I’m sorry for the confusion.

that gnomon is always the global (top I think)

You could ask your SolidWorks folks to color code the holes, and then turn off "use system color for imported solids" in your config converters tab, just below where you turned on import SolidWorks history.

Or, if they are modeling to the minor diameter, ask for a convention that all tapped holes get a chamfer to the major diameter.  I've seen both work as long as everybody is on board, from engineering to shop.

3 hours ago, nprime said:

convenient way to be machined

Do you use the point sort in points manager?

Also, the link I posted here will work for anyone with access to the customer forum, but in the thread there is a post about "my voice" page that not everyone has access to.

I think he means containment boundaries, like the red and green outlines in his first response.  And that is probably a simpler solution than my suggestion to create a surface plane underneath the part.  Also since your part is flat on the bottom edge, his suggestion to use depth limits would be simpler as well.

I looked at your file again.  Flowline fails because the UV flow does not align.  I am not sure you can swap them in X7, but if you can swap UV and/or re-flow to get them to align, it might work.  Not reversing the normal, that is just the vector for which side of the surface is 'up', and that looks to be correct.

3 hours ago, Jake L said:

I thought the same thing... but your link works fine for me and your link is to a thread on the regular customer forum. If your link was to a thread on  the 3rd Party Developers forum then it would all make sense.

Unless having access to the 3rd Party Developers content changes the link so those without access cannot see it. I'll send something to CNC software about this, see what they say.

I think the permission must be being set by user profile.  I've had this happen a couple other times in the last handful of months on the customer forum, with links that other users have posted.  At first I thought it was like all the dead links in old posts (to other old posts) that are not accessible since they did the major forum update a year or so ago.  But more recently it started to clue me in when the links I couldn't reach would be in posts from some of the folks we know on these forums that are developers and pre-public beta testers.

Not only can you do math in any yellow field, as well as the rmb menu for selection, in the last handful of versions as they have migrated to the "function panel" UI and updated other interface layouts, there are white fields which allow math and rmb selectors as well.  

On 8/10/2023 at 9:26 AM, Tim Johnson said:

We make some 303 stainless heat sinks and we slot the fins in with a 1/8" high feed mill. We run it at 15000 rpm at 335 ipm. If our doc is more than .005" we will get early breakage. I'm verifying one right now.

I of course have no idea how far your tool is sticking out, but with a standard issue (coated, SS-cutting geom) 4 flute 1/4" l.o.c. 1/8" EM and flood coolant in 303 if i use the relatively (extremely this decade it seems) conservative sfm of 245 I get 7500 rpm and can get reasonable tool life (it's a $15 tool) at 24 ipm full slot width of cutter with flood coolant at .08 d.o.c. which seems really slow compared to your 335 ipm.  But when multiplied by d.o.c. it's actually a 15% faster volumetric removal rate.  And if I sacrifice a little tool life I can feed 10% faster or .09 d.o.c. which is 25-30% faster material removal rate than what you've got at .005 d.o.c.

But again, if you have 1/2" l.o.c. or a longer reach tool the depth and feedrate go down and you get the win with high-feed shallow d.o.c.

I too get the same screen.  'Do Not Have Permission'

I am logged in to the official forum.  I even copied the link and pasted it to the tab that I am logged in.

This is the second time in a week that a link posted gave this message.  The other was from @ Thee Byte and on the official forum.

https://my.mastercam.com/forums/topic/stock-model-additional-offset-limit-to-surface-normal-direction/#post-82705

I am curious too what the limiting factor is here.

I think it might be a separate sign-up for third-party developer permissions.

Looking at your file, the first operation seems like it could be simply a 2d contour.  But that's not what you are having trouble with.

To get rid of the Z plunge, you might have to make a flat plane surface underneath the drive surface, the radius of your ball mill below and use it as a check surface.

Consider trying flowline toolpath.  I am pretty sure you'll have that in X7.  You might have to break it up to a couple different operations if it doesn't find the flow on all the surfaces together.  (You might have to flip normals on surfaces.  If it doesn't flow at all, you might have to upgrade a few years.  By 2022 (and earlier? but I forget when) there are tools to flip U-V of surfaces as well.  But you might be able to re-create your surfaces and get them to have better U-V flow.)  In any case, my guess is that flowline will get you a better toolpath along the length of the neck, and probably the other areas as well, even if you have to do multiple operations with a smaller selection of surfaces.

put the boss in the hole

5 hours ago, CNC CHRIS said:

are you able to make it go G53 Z2.500 after a tool change as well?

Chris,  You should be able to add the G53 to your post right after the tool change, just like the G28 line after M06 at the top of this post.

Jon @ Gibbs,  Are your machines the "umbrella"-style carousel where the spindle goes up about 4" after the tool is unclamped?  If so, the G28 position is the point where it lines up with the incoming pickle-fork on the tool changer.  I can't remember if the Haas uses G30 Z0 for the move to clear the tool/retention knob, and I'm not around one of those machines.  But the suggestion to use G53 G90 Zxxxx should get you what you want, after you handle up to find out your max positive Z.

On 5/7/2024 at 11:44 AM, Aaron Eberhard said:

Right, which is I don't consider the wireframe stuff as parametric

It is maybe worth noting that with basic solids like block or sphere, they are parametric.  You can go back and just change the numbers to re-size.  Also, any extrude function can be edited to change the distance with just a number.

But the thing that I have found interesting over the last several versions is that in analyze mode you can edit XYZ locations of endpoints of lines and center points of arcs, as well as radius or diameter and sweep angle of arc and the vector angle of a line, and the the 3D length of either.  Changing 3D length and sweep or vector doesn't give you a choice of which end is going to change, so that's not very good control.   But it does allow you to just change numbers to modify the chained geometry for a solid function.

On 4/27/2024 at 5:57 AM, JB7280 said:

Looks like you removed the avoidance, and added a containment.  Is the jagged path stemming from the software trying to avoid that face?

That toolpath looks nice.  I'll try it.  Thank you. 

Yes. That's exactly what's happening.  That's why containment is clean.  I'll have to remember that next time avoidance is giving me messy boundary toolpath.  Sometimes making the avoidance stock-to-leave less than the cut stock-to-leave by a few tenths will help smooth the edge of the toolpath.  But I like the containment.  The other day I used depth limits to get rid of some jerky stuff at the end of a similar toolpath.

It's definitely a size issue.  I did it as revolved surface, revolved solid, surface from solid.  That thing is .1mm!

I scaled the wire x100, and then the revolved surface is smooth.  Of course scaling adds another tolerance/rounding issue.

When scaled back down, it becomes triangulated again, and not a nice curve.

You could go into your config settings and add a couple decimal places to some of the math for CAD.

3 curve surface.mcam