You can select the solid for machining but I prefer to create surfaces or edges from the solid to drive personally. The primary gain IMO is design as you said, but there are alot of small things that are an advantage even if you don't drive the solid for toolpaths. I have noticed visual effect differences when rotating and such; Importing/exporting models is much better; The change recognition feature if you drive the model; etc.

I have experienced this same thing. Typically I modified my containment boundary to stay inside the walls(.025 or so) I wanted to cut with the raster motion then create some wireframe geometry to do a surface finish project or surface finish blend along the walls seperately. This also allows me to climb or conventional cut the wall as I prefer. Doesn't help your current situation, but might offer you an alternative. HTH

Drawings are a different beast as I never have much luck with them converting well at all. However, with the .step conversions, CATREAD, parasolid conversion etc. the latest and greatest that I have dealt with are pretty darn good with just the solid model. I think the converters have gotten FAR, FAR better. In fact I haven't had to tinker with a model once I convert it from CATIA or UG for a couple years. Alot of them are going from .model(Catia V4) to .catpart(Catia V5) to Mastercam too.

I draw only simple fixtures/tooling and import the parts. Rarely do we have to draw an actual part, but when we do it is in CATIA.

I believe 2 1/2 axis means you can do 2d toolpaths(contouring, pocketing etc.) with Z depths. 3 axis means you could do surfacing toolpaths with active XYZ movement. If you need a 4 or 5 axis motion, then you would have to get the multiaxis license. I would suggest you contact your reseller and they can give you a detailed description of Level 1, 2, 3 and the additional multi-axis licenses. HTH

What they said or you could go with a 1" ball and up the stepover a bit then be able to profile the .50" radius instead of keller it in. I would stick with a 2 flute carbide cutter especially if the tip will be doing a lot of work. If it is 6000 series or up T condition aluminum you can run the RPM up to 15K probably, but if is softer like 2024 you might have to run the RPM slower to avoid slagging.

Good tip Rickster, I forgot about that. quote: Helps in Vericut though.... I know you used to have to go into the javaw file in vericut to get it to actually see more than 2 GB... Is this still the case? Not that it matters for me...this pile I am using only has 2 GB of RAM.

Just trying to help, but you may want to have your topic say VB script as to get more attention to your request.

As Steve is saying it will not work within a routine, only from toolpath to toolpath. In my opinion it is somewhat of a workaround too because to me it would be greatly beneficial to be able to orient your lead in and lead out/ clearance vectors to your desire as to actually control this issue.

Verify does not simulate the actual way the machine will interpret the data. It may be right, but it may not. It also does not take into account how the post processor will convert the data to gcode. If you want to be sure how the machine moves from one 5axis position to another, you can drive a curve 5-axis toolpath to manually control how it goes from one vector to another.

Try using solid fillet instead of the face to face option and select the edges instead of the faces.

+1 to standard tools in the machines at all times. 30 standard tools will machine probably 90 percent of the work assuming the type of parts you do don't fluctuate wildly of course. Standardizing how you locate parts, where origin is set, etc. in programming can help alot too. If every program origin for every program is the same locating hole, or edge of a vise, etc. this will help too. If you are using multiple vises an idea is to use prefabbed subplates with the vises already aligned and mounted. That way you can throw the sublplate on the table, pin and bolt it to the machine and go instead of spending all the time to align them. Personally I am not a big fan of vises, but they do have their place. I'd prefer using technigrips for most operations on small parts. Start getting into mid to large parts(30 to 60 inches long and the rules change. Longer even than that and you can pretty much throw standard tooling out the window, but still design your tooling in a way that is consistent with how other parts in your shop are set up.

That's possible Dave, but up to him. Send me an email with an indication of the information you would like to know and I will ask if he has time to do so.

The quality guy here uses Discus. He was showing me what it would do and how easily it will make FAI drawings/forms. I was impressed although I have never personally used it. He raves about it all the time.

Build a loop macro with dwell so it cycles the dwell in a closed loop without the block delete on. As soon as they are done, they can turn on block delete and cycle out of the dwell loop then carry on.

quote: ALSO, remember, in aerospace, unless your machine is certified, you really can't count on the numbers Speaking about aerospace specifically, this is probably the biggest snag that I am aware of. Depending on the customer requirements, you may have to define a procedure for probe calibration and machine certification on an inspection level. As far as restraint is concerned, hypothetically the part is supposed to be checked in a free state or with the allowable weight restraint. As an option to this many are checked in a restrained condition with a more manual approach taken in the FAI to ensure the datums are not distorted after the part is off restraint. Another variable to keep in mind is temperature control. You will have to be able to verify that the part is at 68 degrees for most aerospace work that I am aware of. Not to say it doesn't happen otherwise... but in the cases of audits you might find yourself in a bad dream if you don't have a plan going into it on the front end.

Do you mean you are trying to establish the vector before you enter the pocket to cut the wall?

I would suggest drawing a line where you want your X axis, a line for your Y axis with the endpoints of the lines trimmed at the origin you want. Then go into the WCS manager, create a new WCS and click on the geometry tab. Select the x-axis line, then the y axis line and you have created a new WCS at the origin you wish. Just make sure this WCS is active when doing your toolpaths. HTH

quote: What are the advantages of surface rgh contour vs. surface finish contour if multi-pass isn't an option? IMO there isn't one so I don't use it and only use surface finish countour.

I tried them out some and didn't like a small amount of the motion it generated. I like having total control of what the tool is doing and if I can't get it then I am going to find a way to force it. Often times the older toolpaths are the only way I know of doing that.

I typically create curves making certain the endpoints are aligned to produce only an axis movement on which you want then sync by entity. Oh and using entities, you have to have the same number of entities on the top control chain as the bottom. Then it will swarf from endpoint of each upper/lower line to endpoint throughout the chain.

I prefer to study the print until I have an adequate 3d image in my head. Then I twist my right ear for dynamic spin, my left ear for dynamic pan. Seriously though I tend to visualize how I want it to look by operation. Once I figure out that, visualize somewhat backwards the steps it takes to get there. Often times it is better to start modelling it from a print to get a better idea of what you are seeing.

I have an etch-a-sketch on my desk for when they come ask. Seriously though, it is worth the time to think and think again about how to tool the parts you program so that they can only be loaded in one way. I think this is more beneficial really than a setup sheet because half of the operators can't read... maybe that is too harsh. I usually give enough views(3 most of the time) to show how it loads, clamping, origin, and a tool list then a program header that contains all the info as well.

quote: G10=[CYP, 42, V] V.1 This is writing a value into a parameter or variable register in the control. If I had to guess based on it being before drill cycles I would guess it has something to do with a retract plane or something similar. You need to look it up in the acramatic book to find out the specifics.

OTJ training is all I have ever seen. There have many scenarios where programming or engineering has to do alot of hand holding, but in the end the source inspector from whatever company we are building parts for is the one who puts the smackdown on subpar QA people.