Thank you for the response and post information Colin. That is vey helpful.

I spoke with my reseller for a while yesterday and it appears the issue is that X7 does not force a regeneration of the toolpath that you change the offset values in. If there are multiple toolpaths using that tool, it will force regeneration of the following toolpaths but not the initial one changed.

After changing and re-ordering the tool numbers, select the entire toolpath group and do a regeneration. That fixed it.

Has anyone figured out the correct, simple way to remedy this yet? I have the exact same issue as the OP. It is quite annoying. I always go over the programs with a fine tooth comb when they are originally posted, and catch this. However, when I am going back to a job months later to re-post an altered tool, I have overlooked the error not expecting anything like that to be present in an already run program... You can imagine how well that goes.

Thanks,

Lans

Is CNCsoftware aware of this problem? It sounds like everyone is having the same issue, me included. I do not see a solution offered up yet.

I cannot accurately verify my lolli-pop toolpath. I have been getting by with just analyzing the stock model for the time being since that can accurately understand the tool. It wasn't a problem until a couple days ago when a large part was scrapped because I could not watch the verify... not cool. The tool is a simple lolli-pop tool with every parameter set correctly for flute length/shoulder length/shoulder dia...

I have not found anything about the new verify that is even somewhat comparable to verify in X6. On top of this the quality of the verify image seems worse than X6.

I really need to get these issues figured out ASAP. I am hoping everything is a parameter adjustment that needs to be set-up correctly.

Thanks,

Lans

FWIW... These parameters rocked it! F70.0 IPM, S3000 RPM, .050" Stepover, .750" DOC. Ran through all of our parts on one E.M. and did it much faster than previously.

Thank you for the help guys!

Those sfm those guys are running are pretty high, but everyone is about the same. Also 10% (.050) seems standard. Goldorak has a ton of experience with this I know. Check out his comments.

 

IMHO you gotta use feed override to really tune it in. Don't forget to enter your results into the form (in my signature).

 

Thanks fellas!

Thanks a ton!

Thank you again mkd!

I am in fact using a .500" E.M. Looks like I will go S3000, F70, S.O. .030" on the roughing, square end.

F100. S5000 S.O. .010" on the ball finish tool. Crossing fingers!

the beauty with HS method's small stepovers is you have small angular engagement which gives less time to heat-up.

 

F70. might be too slow@3000rpm.

maybe F100. (how many flutes?)

I am using a 4-fl variable helix E.M. F70. @3000 is SFM of 393 and IPT of .006". Going up to F100. puts it at IPT .008". Were you referring to the ball tooling only at F100? Or the roughing E.M?

Thank you !

Resurrecting this from the past

I am working with 321 SS and it has given me nothing but headaches and melted tools. How similar in machining concept, speed, and feed can I be to what was discussed in the above posts?

I was going to go ahead and try a variable helix, 4-fl, carbide E.M. at S3000, F70., step over .050", DOC .750" People said this worked well on 304 and I am reading that they are similar to each other with the exception of Ti being added to 321.

Also, while on the subject. I know you have to get a nice, deep, radial cut to keep from generating heat and work hardening. I can do that for pocketing and roughing but what about surface finishing? I cannot have a large stepover due to surface finish requirements and I am afraid of heating up the tool while removing a little at a time.

Thanks for any and all help!

Lans

I just dug this up in search of something a little more efficient than the project method, which is what I have always done... nothing

I really think Mastercam should try and incorporate some kind of toolpath specifically for this, that doesn't require so much work. In today's age, we really need to be able to fully deburr a part in the machine and do it competitively.

Thanks for all the help offers guys!

The main problem is the .3748" diameter hole that is on 10 degrees. The outside profile isn't really causing a problem.

I sent you a part file Del.

It isn't a pressing matter anymore but I would still like to find a solution to the issue.

I made a new fixture to mount the part at 10 degrees so I can make a simple straight cut program instead of the 4-axis one.

I would like to find the most efficient and cleanset way of cutting things like this regardless but I do think the majority of the problem may lie with the wire machines control and not Mastercam.

Lars,

Unfortunately I don't think that I can use anything but splines on this contour. It is a diameter sliced at 10 degrees which creates an eleptical spline. Is there a way to generate something other than a spline for this?

I will give the autosync rails opption a try also.

Thanks guys

It tells me that splines are not allowed in direct 4-axis....oh yeah, this is concerning splines.

Thanks

Hey guys,

Ever since my shop got our first wire EDM machine, about a year ago, I have struggled with getting a good surface finish out of the 4-axis wire contour on Mastercam.

It seems that no matter what I do, or if the geometry is spline or arc, I always end up with a series of flats instead of a smooth surface. The only thing I have ever been able to do to somewhat fix this is either run a taper contour instead or make the filter tolerance ridiculously small. The filter tolerance thing doesn't even work for me because the machine alarms out due to a wire compensation error because of the tiny increments in moves.

Oh yeah, the machine is an Agie Charmille 440C if that helps.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx!

Lans

Yep, what Colin said. Select Create Line tangent through point, then select the arc, next select the point, and finally the length of the line.

I only have one 19"

Oh how I wish I had two...

Yep...go with the recommended grades, feeds, and speeds. When in doubt, give your tool supplier a call and see if they can get a rep in to advise on tools/toolpaths. Our Sandvik guy is awesome at helping out with this type of stuff.

As far as machining process goes I agree with TheePres. I would run these parts out of round stock if at all possible (if not use a four-jaw chuck). I would turn the threads on a lathe first. Next, I would screw the part into a mandrel on a 4-axis VMC or an HMC and mill the flats/hole and outside contour.

Even without an HMC or 4-axis VMC I would probably run them the same but manually rotate the part 180 degs for the second flat side and just indicate it in if four parts is all you have to do.

Hope this helps.

Thanks as well! Got me goin too!

Thanx! I had the same issue...working great now!

Hello guys and gals,

Does anyone know where I can change the tolerance for posting the plunge rate and feed rate?

When I post something that is cutting along changing radii and lines (lettering) it pulls the plunge rate in-between radial and straight cuts...hard to explain.

This is what it looks like below. Notice the "G1F50." in between the radial cuts.

Is there a way to change this?

Thank you very much.

G1Z-.513F50.

G3X-8.9463Y-.2924R.0594F4.

X-8.8897Y-.2513R.0594

X-8.8782Y-.1883R.1781

X-8.8857Y-.1371R.1781

G1F50.

G3X-8.9434Y-.092R.0594F4.

X-9.Y-.1331R.0594

X-9.0028Y-.1512R.0594

X-8.9434Y-.2106R.0594

X-8.884Y-.1512R.0594

X-8.8857Y-.1371R.0594

G0Z-.45

Thanks a ton for your help!

I think I have it figured out now anyways. I used the suggestions you gave me and it looks to be good.

I'll let you guys know when we run it next week.

Thank you very much!

Lans

Thanks Del.

For some reason it is cutting the taper smaller at the top even though the geometry is reverse of that.

is this a parameter in my machine that differs from yours?

I re-chained the contours in the order specified:

thread

lower

upper

cut

I also selected sync byt entity and it looks 100% better. It still will not let me do direct taper though. "wire compensation not successful"

Yes, half of it at a time. What you see is the first half. After that I will have to rotate it and do the second.

The break point is where you see the extended contours across from each other.