quote: This is a new machine (to me) and I'll be back when I can't figure out the proper combiniation of machine parameters and signed/not signed/0-360 settings in my mmd. Haas Applications Dept uses MC so they can help you out. They may even throw you a post. -- Bill

After looking through many of these enhancement requests, lots of them could be resolved if the board offered a private newsreader version. It's also the simplest low overhead way to access the group. Is that still off the table? -- Bill

quote: Yeah XP sux Get a real system with a minimum of 8 gigs RAM and you'll run circles around the XP boxes ALL day. Anyone compared Win7 64 to XP 64? for computing times? -- Bill

quote: In the past, shops would mirror at the control and use left-hand cutters. WOW!! Good luck with all those carbide indexable left hand cutters and near double the tool library size. It cant imagine doing things that way today and staying in business long. [Confused] It's not that black and white. Indexable tools were left cutting conventional. Non-indexables were the only left hand grinds (in-house). It allowed having a bought off tape for both hands rather quickly. But as I said, due to the specialized nature of cutting requirements we now create copies of the operations to conventional cutting within the cam file and then mirror in the post. As far as staying in business long... one of them is the largest airframe shop in LA. A small part is 3 feet in size. -- Bill

The shops I do work for host multiple cam systems. No one moves the parts... ever. -- Bill

The aerospace shops I've worked always keep the model in aircraft coordinates. 1. Newer revision parts import into the same location without any guess work. 2. Working with inspection is smoother since you're both using the same coordinates. 3. When discussing model issues with your customer you're both on the same page. 4. Working with Vericut is a breeze. I can see no reason to ever move an aircraft part. As far as mirroring: In the past, shops would mirror at the control and use left-hand cutters. We'd put OPSKIPs in the program to change spindle rotation where needed. The new method seems to be creating duplicate cam operations, reversing tool path directions in cam then mirroring in the post. -- Bill

maestro, As others have said there is more complexity with Catia but... a big but - you can create tools within the system to automate much of that complexity. When you get training be sure to speak up about these things. Ask about templates and global editing within operations. A real time saver when you have 100 operations and want to change the engage/retract technique or a host of other parameters. -- Bill

Most shops I've seen (large & small) have a short production meeting once a week involving the main parties. Some call it "contract review". It's there you could present the worksheet. At a minimum items 1-4 should be worked out by the owner (as part of the quoting process) prior to even getting the job. I hate it when they'd assume the stock size and then I'm stuck with multiple setups because they didn't allow for tooling tabs. That's why I say get them to work it out up front (with you of coarse). It might inspire them to maybe create some sort of in-house spreadsheet for each job. I think all the items you listed are pretty valid and should be thought of during the quotation process. They would then be confirmed at the production meeting (very short meeting... I hate meetings...) -- Bill

As others have said, some shops have the planning dept or person for this but it appears you provide the complete shop floor docs. Are there over 20 employees? I pick that number as a good time to think of dedicated shop floor travelers. To meld all that info with the programming docs will be tough to maintain. The upside to adding such a package is they can really help with scheduling lead times. The one brand that comes to mind that I used in the past that is a leader is JobBoss. There are several others that may be a lot cheaper. Ask around. Maybe someones done a custom using a database? The trick is to find one that does not run your life. -- Bill

Sharath, At a previous employer we went down the same road as you. We tried the color coding (at the time I'd extract faces and color them on layers in MC - more geometry). The problem was many times the tolerance could not be defined well enough simply by face colors. Example: in most industries, the designer does not necessarily model the surfaces mid-tolerance (assembly fit checks) so that has to be additionally addressed. On the design side they went to using GD&T within the cad system for their end of "paperless". We ended up installing some of those cad seats using floating licenses for the programmers to interrogate and or make in-work sketches as needed. Now "Model Based Definition" part files are getting some traction from the major aerospace customers so at some point cam systems will need to address integrating importing GD&T as well. -- Bill

The biggest gain in machine simulation I've found is for complex tool movements on multi-axis machines. Many times one will find their program runs out of travel due to head/trunnion rotation. Having those limits in the simulation really helps. One example is a large impeller that barely fits on a smallish machine. Along those lines, seeing how much axis "thrashing" there is before it hits the floor is a bonus. On older machines, those "cool" looking axis rotations everyone posts on youtube can really make for long run times and excessive machine wear. -- Bill

Saipem: I worked for a large valve manufacturer that had a demo of Esprit back in 1998 for the mill-turns. As I recall it had a cool way of synchronizing the tools and spindles. It was also VERY expensive. Ron, "Cell systems, 5 axis machines, and MTM machines are the top sellers." No doubt about the 5axis side. Maybe my views are narrowed as I'm mostly at airframe shops and the calls for work are for 5ax large gantry type stuff. The two turbine shops I do work for do their millturn programming with spliced togethers from cam and hand. -- Bill

Multi-Tasking-Machines... mill-turns and the like. Ten years ago Esprit had the market on them. Has that changed? That said, the demand while big for those you use them is small compared to the general cnc market. Maybe one shop in 10? And of those most are doing basic milling and turning so... YMMV. -- Bill

With the advent of the low cost S Corp and or LLC setups, many can just contract direct as a service. Why give some middle man $10 hour to do your payroll and taxes? JMHO. -- Bill

"Usenet sucks for everything other than pirating movies/music." Like I said earlier (though a moot point now), it is restricted access. Yes it is Usenet. No it is not a public group. It is NOT like that "other" group. Being setup binary you can add pitures and files just like here without the general public even viewing them. Most BBS providers offer linking tools to use it in parallel with the BBS. Just my .000002 -- Bill

"If I'm making that call, not a chance. The layout of UG's was terrible, would not want to see this go that route." You mean basic categories with the related threads under it is terrible? To me, it's the simplest and most direct way for a user to get info. It's what is here now. You just lose the graphics. And you add users who have the internet blocked at work. I'm just say'n... "We can always make a stripped down/newsreader skin for the board and give people the option if that's what they want." That may be the best approach. You might be surprised at the number of takers. And the users here who are thinking it's a wide open newsgroup like that "other" one. It's not. It would be password and moderated just like here - because it is here - but faster. :-) -- Bill

Time to join with the pros and move to a true newsreader based board. Far easier to navigate without all the cutesy avatars and graphics to slow things down. These BBS's tend to be slow as mud compared to a news board. Also allows better search and filtering. Removes all the issues about filtering topics and threads. You also can then get users who at work only have mail access which is a big plus. -- Bill

Hi Chris, When I said unroll, I meant for surface analysis only. Meaning: the surface could be "unrolled" to a planer surface. You would not machine it unrolled as a roll die. If it's like you say for stirring perhaps you could tweak the surfaces to allow flank milling which is much cheaper to manufacture than point milling or approximated flank milling. Don't get too frustrated with this project. Impeller machining done properly is a niche industry. It's not something many folks pick up right away. I did them for 2 years straight and each one was different. Depending on the design of the impeller there are specific metheds that work best. Up till recently the only cam system uniquely designed for this work as a "canned" sequence costs >$100k. Could you post just a picture of the part? Rather than try to find the magic buttons of the cam system (which is never a good idea), as I said you need to define how you want to machine it first. -- Bill

I like to think of maintaining older software in dog years. Eight years is a long time to support that version... Maybe give the user a little nudge to move up? -- Bill

First, have you machined impellers before? Do you have a strategy that you'd like to implement for the process? A few things to consider: many impellers have blade faces (suction/pressure) that are not developable (not simple ruled surfaces when "unrolled"). The test is can the tool be tangential to the surface along the length of the tool at some angle?. Flank milling will not be suitable on those surfaces. The best plan is to write down the steps you need then approach it with cam. -- Bill

"Many 5-axis parts need special functions. For instance, you need a totally different 5-axis cutterpath to cut an impeller than you use for a turbine blade. Which are totally different than cutting a deep cavity, or tire tread or show tread." Well put. One should know what they want to tool to do and then tell the software to do it. And, that software should do it that way (or close to it). Often times when showing cam programming to a new user from another package, I ask them what do you want the tool to do? That makes the system irrelevant. -- Bill

Damian, check your mail... -- Bill

"The OP was talking about complex 3-axis and 5-axis work and neither Catia nor UG is a good solution in that area IMO." ??? You're kidding right? NX while not as fast to learn as MC certainly handles 5ax superb. The same I'm sure is with Catia. "But just to clarify.Both have poor verification capabilities for collisions in 5-axis work with only the toolpaths being verified for collisions and not the linking moves (which Powermill does)." Using NX's Verify (since v5) it will tell you if the collision was during the transition between ops. Just a heads up for the OP to decide. -- Bill

"Well, now there is a well-know product offering it... The great new about this product is that it offers the possibility to split the a toolpath calculation among several machines... that is, the same toolpath is splitted to be computed at several machines..." If we're thinking of the same product (NX), it distributes the processing of several operations using separate cpu cores. Select 4 operations to generate and it can assign the 4 cores of a quad to process at once. The catch is if one operation is dependent on the results of a previous operation, that must be done first.

"I just want to be able to challenge some of these Catia guys head on." Apples to oranges my boy... Surely as long as you've been with Boeing you've seen the loyalty to Catia. Surly you've met the "Catia Mafia" (the in-house Catia reps). They will NEVER use anything else on the large production airframe work. Never. Yes on prototype or interior components but not large production airframe. The internal quality standards are based on same-system design through manufacture. They're able to control revisions and quality this way. It may not be as "quick" as MCX but it maintains the overall process which has a much larger cost to the project. Think about the on-going revision control and you know just what I mean. -- Bill