thanks in advance for any help here. this is a revolved surface w/ 1 dg draft that dynamically analyzes 2.5130 rad. at the top edge. when i create a curve at the top edge, i end up with an arc that analyzes 2.5126. same thing if i project a curve onto the surface which ends up as a line. a file is up on the ftp in 'all nc programs/x.mc9'. this came up a while back and i nearly had scrap from using the wrong number. (much smaller part where the difference was more significant.) here is the answer i got from the guys at cnc (everything between the dashed lines). ------------------------------------------------ Here is the response from programming: “This is not a bug. Since the surface is tapered, the radius of curvature of the surface will be different than the radius of the arc at the ends, because it the surface curvature is affected by the surface normal. This becomes readily apparent if you create another surface with a larger arc that has much greater taper.” Apparently the analyze function works on the surface normal which will never be the same as the arcs used to create it on a tapered surface. I’m not certain how I feel about this explanation yet but it is apparently working as intended. ------------------------------------------------- but here's the problem again and it still doesen't make sense to me. so if someone can explain it any better, i would appreciate it. i'm still not sure which information i need to use and which to disregard. they can't both be right, can they? thanks

linky this may be of some help.

sorry, that was wrong info. my mistake.

on the toolbar. machine type/ control def./ nc output.

some stl files i have generated in verification have been very large. of course it depends on the relative size of the geometry, tolerance being used to create it, and possibly some other factors. imo, they are very slow to work with when they get too big. i have not found a need to use stl files to create toolpaths on, but i think if you do a search, there have been a few threads on the subject.

afit, sounds like a good time to use an alternative wcs. you should be able to define a new wcs dependent on your 'flat' side of the pyramid using some of the geometry options. once you have created that, set it as the active wcs and go to a top view. i think that is what you are asking...??? hth.

so maybe its just the wcs stuff thats messin with you? if so, why not transform the part itself, since it sounds like you know exactly what you want. just do it one step at a time. so you could transform it and do a 'save as'. then transform it again and do another 'save as'. etc. till you have all the positions as complete files. maybe not the most efficient way, but if it works, thats ok.

ok. rotate around what?

if your reference points can be rotated (created) before tilting, you could then select them and create new wcs for each one. then tilt individually. ??? edit: if your pocket geometry can be rotated from a conventional positioning(leftside wcs/top view in this case.), then you could just repeat the process you used to create the 'pocket' wcs however many times you need to. if this is the case, then the geometry rotation would be a transform/rotate function, around the origin while 'leftside' wcs is active. [ 06-27-2006, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: bellyup ]

im a little fuzzy on this, but in the view manager, you have a wcs called 'pocket setup' that looks like what you would use. first of all, is that what you want to start with? is that the point that you would like to move off of?

sorry, i didnt see that you put it in the 'new folder'. looking now.

if there is, i haven't seen it.

ive got some time to try to help, but as brian said, your uploads are empty.

i don't have a good understanding of these warnings, but i think the conflict is because the flowlines do not work together in this case. one option is to do separate flowline toolpaths. maybe two. or using a parallel seems like a good choice here.

ill take a look as soon as possible.