Jump to content

Welcome to eMastercam

Register now to participate in the forums, access the download area, buy Mastercam training materials, post processors and more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Use your display name or email address to sign in:

MotorCityMinion

eMC Learning Group
  • Posts

    1,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MotorCityMinion

  1. "Hrm, did you get an error at all?" Nope. Went pretty smooth actually. The only section I did not fill out was the copy write area. I'll give it another shot later. Oh ya, THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS!
  2. This is getting interesting. I uploaded some pics with a brief description in Project 1 but they didn't stick. I'll try again later.
  3. Thinking about the last two responses, If I did it again with a quantity in mind, I'd go back and and create drive surfaces, then split them in the vicinity, location dependent of the rad tool diameter. 2d contour the bulk of it and flowline or blend the 3D. Last shop I worked at had a bench hand / polisher with OCD who just loved tackling those kinds of fillets quickly with a Gesswein. I would confer with him prior to leaving off any fillets. He seriously reduced the amount of ridiculous programming required to get into tight areas. Saved money on tooling as well.
  4. " the third tool path was a surface blend just match up." From the the last picture, your desire is to have the tool path normal to the surface. I'm with Brad on this, SF Blend is the way I'd go. Make the two outside profiles just a little bit wider than your tool radius then use the across settings. Create a dummy drive surface, 3d swept, that follows those off set profiles, (or use the existing curves and extend the surfaces), then move that surface in Z to achieve your desired depth on the out side profiles. #2. Try including the floor of the fixture and use depth limits. If depth limits fail to smooth out the tool path, you can also trim the tool path from the front or right. Project the curves you want to trim to, to the front plane then move them your desired amount in Z. This method will produce some extra motion in the vertical as the -Z will follow that trim path. As for the finish, go to the Helical Solutions website site and download the Surface finish step over calculator. It's free. Personally, I'd try to go along first before I went across and see what takes longer.
  5. "Time isn't what is important here. At least for me." My thoughts as well. Although I consider a few of the uploaded programs to be fairly aggressive with regards to technique, I'm here to see how others would approach the same part and see if I can pull something new from it. I spend quite a bit of time programming as I try to get as close as I can to net shape. Also note there are NO collisions in verify. I also try to maintain a climb cut when I can but was influenced when I saw the other programs. My background entailed 1 piece tool details and often there is only one piece of stock to work with. Tooling considerations factor into this as well. Some of the the tools I use are expensive and will only produce 1 part before getting dull. Lead ins then become critical and must be tweaked. I can't afford to be banging into excessive stock when entering a cut so I spend time on my approach. Bob W spoke of custom radius tools for production work. Step drills with built in cfers and cbores would also work well in this scenario, as would custom cfer tools for the external edges but that also requires design time and a little extra thought for programming as well as more lead time to get the tooling made, usually in excess of 8 to 12 hours. Cutting the fillets short requires more hand finishing or customer approval. A 3 minute cycle time leaves very little time to de-burr and check parts. There are too many ways to approach this with out tying it down to specific parameters before getting started. The Jazz Bass in the next project: Surfacing that large scallop in the second op is timely on the machine. A custom tool could have knocked that out exponentially faster. New guys get to see that blend example and make a choice. I could have also crammed all three of the features that make up the scallop into one tool path but compression was starting to take place and I did not like the way back plot looked so it became two finishing tool paths instead.
  6. A few things no one mentioned. Heat shrink holder, Hydraulic chuck, precision collet, that's my preference for holding tools. Get that tool running true. More than a few parts? Use a bull mill, floor first, stay off the walls, hit the walls staying .002 above the floor then finish with the sharp for picking the floor corners. Your process may vary but I typically leave .005 prior to heat treat for finish, depending on the shape of the part. "I use OSG Exocarb- WXS cutters for cutting D-2 at 60 and have great tool life." Same here. Nachi performs just as well. These tools are made with a very thick web and small radial relief. Stub flute length cutters work great in this scenario. One thing to bear in mind with these hard milling end mills and that there is very little relief. The .015 on the floor may create issues.
  7. Bob, see this. From Page four of this topic, and welcome aboard!
  8. Alt + Z for the level manager. As for the wcs. Perhaps the Mastercam screen was resized larger than your monitor while in restore down mode. Try ALT + F4 to help you remember what you did.
  9. "It will be ok. It will be like some of the customers we get models from here. Some are very nice, and some are freaking terrible." Oh no...lol, let me clarify that, I recreated the entire Model a long time ago, this should be fine. I actually intended to make a full modeling and machining tutorial out of this but read somewhere that X7 now handles boundaries and check surfaces differently in some tool paths and I did not want to create a conflict when the X7 HLE rolls out. Guys, with regards to the new topic, Jazz Bass, please put all new post in the topic named..... MLG - Project 1 - Jazz Bass Guitar
  10. Your welcome. Can we wait a few days to see if any problems arise before starting the new thread? That way, I can clean up the file if needed. Too late... This started out from grabcad. The Model was less satisfactory, lack of tangency everywhere, too many splines as well. I recreated the scale, got rid of the splines, and made everything tangent. This part in no way reflects the dimensions required to make an accurate model of a Jazz bass and is merely intended for educational purposes only.
  11. Here is an easier one to try, the X6 Jazz Bass. (X6 JAZZ BASS.emcx-6 of the ftp in the Mastercam_Learning_Group Folder.) I created a solids tutorial in a 3D pdf format for those that are new to Mastercam and modeling. Special thanks goes out to Enie and the crew at Verisurf. I believe that Acrobat 11 will be required to open this. (X6 JAZZ BASS SOLIDS TUTORIAL.PDF) All the geometry necessary to create the model is present. The solid is there as well with a full history for those who do not wish to make the model. Hope you have as much fun with this as I did. The files are write protected and will require saving under a new name. Feedback is welcome and revisions to these files will be made if required. This part in no way reflects the dimensions required to make an accurate model of a Jazz bass and is merely intended for educational purposes only. MotorCityMinion. PS. A Jazz Bass Body MCM .jpg was accidentally uploaded to the FTP folder. If a MOD would like to remove it, that would be fine. I'm good with leaving it there as well. Note that the PDF states to open the files named X6 HST JAZZ BASS. This is incorrect, use this: X6 JAZZ BASS.emcx-6 Ignore the sections on tool pathing in the pdf. My intentions were to remove all the toolpathing tips.
  12. "I can't really argue with success at this point." Ya, he's back, lol. I never cared for the MC calculator, it always felt awkward, but I never really gave it a chance either. I usually save and pull the tools that I use on a daily basis to / from mill_inch and clean that library up every now and then. I've found that too many variables exist with regards to the adaptive clearing type tool paths and eventually gave up on adding those to the library. The hand held calculator is like my left nu#, always there.
  13. Direction lead ins. Same thing here. I have a 50/50 chance of getting them right. Advanced settings, follow surfaces, tangential line length extension usually produce predictable results.
  14. "I refuse to run other peoples program when its my face in the machine and I can't read block by block. I really don't know how operators can feel comfortable running these machines when they can't read code." Since using Mastercam, I very rarely check the code output. After the g43 line, single block usually comes off. If I catch another experienced operator running one of my programs in single block after the g43, especially if its a proven program, he's gonna get razzed. My boss programs in Surfacam and on the occasion I get to run one of his programs, I proof out the tool offset then walk away. I trust his work, the other guys trust mine. Trust is a must. Do I put my face right in there? No. I do leave the doors open when I can just to hear whats going on. "He would write a new program and because he didn't know how the Z offset and H offsets workedd together every job he reset all the tools leaving the g54 Z value at zero and negative values for all the H lengths." I've set machines up both ways, positive and negative offsets. For the last 12 years, negative offsets, where the g54 Z value equals the thickness of the gage block I'm touching off of. It has not created a problem for me or any of my co-workers.. We don't have a probe or pre-setter and can't afford to leave the same 20 tools in carousel. IMO, long term, positive offsets make more sense. Sure is nice to have a 120 tool magazine, use positive offsets and keep the tools in the machine, but quite a few shops don't work that way.
  15. I use Opera for everyday browsing needs. It too does not like the FTP. I use windows explorer for this and it works fine, uploads and downloads.
  16. This is strange and may be the source of the missing fillet. I tried opening the first file you uploaded awhile back by selecting it from Wndows, not the MC hle and nothing happened, empty file. I then opened it from the hle (15.0.4.4), while it was already open. I also used the Solid, find features option. Somewhere in between these steps the fillet got lost. I open up Rotary and Rays files and the fillet was there. Perhaps uploading a part model with the prefix Master Idler Bracket, Master Boat Anchor, Master Camshaft, and so on, and then right protecting that file would diffuse potential errors and confusion.
  17. On that part, the chains that drove the tool path were actually offset wider to blend adjacent faces into the feature. They could have easily been a set of parallel lines but that would have been no fun and less of an example. With the chains I used, the finish on the part would look like it flows around the feature as opposed to parallel lines that would look blocky. If this billet part were going on a car or bike and was visible, which would you choose? My usual preference is to cut one way, climb. That would have required an additional tool path and I was already getting quite a few tool paths in the file. SF Blend works as a projection tool path. The two chains required can be a circle and a point, arc and a point, a line and a point, line and a arc, two lines. Splines are welcome as well. Any combination of entities will work. It will mimic parallel, radial, spiral, contour in a fashion where those tool paths may be less than desirable. On the FTP. / Mastercam_forum/Training_files/Blend_Examples.zip "I am sorta new to solid work. Maybe a little over a month or so since I really started playing around with them. So it is likely something I did. Not seeing any good examples of solid builds I am going at this on my own." Not to worry as nothing appeared incorrect. Your work was fine. Not being symmetrical on that feature merely added a different approach. I've seen a lot of people that I've considered to be clever never understand the need for a solid or get the approach at all. I personally would start with a solid and let MC create the fillets as opposed to creating the geometry to make the surfaces individually. You have more control if something needs to be changed as well. Sooner or later a surface will need to be made. You also get the added bonus of using the solid in verify.
  18. "Very nice programming BTW. " TY. I started a new Job this week and it turned into a bust. I needed to program that to get my mind off of things. This forum can be an excellent diversion at times. I can see by your response that the Mastercam Learning group is going to be beneficial to everybody who participates. This was an excellent idea on your behalf. Heh, I was wondering why that edge was sharp. I actually though it may have been intentional. Not to worry as this reflects real world conditions when opening models. Strange though as we're both using the same software. Looking at the history tree, it seems like you created the fillets with no special order in mind, that is to say no left to right, top 1st, or by size. Nothing needs a regen in the tree at my end. As for the flowline, you are correct in choosing a surface instead of a solid. Flowline can be very finicky at times and I will resort to using a surface just to see what pops. I control flowline by using several different tactics and as to why this works, some other extremely knowledgeable guy (Jay, need your help) may be able to elaborate on this. 1st I Change the step over. Lets say from .004 to .0038, then a progressive reduction or increase and check the results. 2nd. Change the tolerance. Believe it or not I've found that a change of .0001 can help in certain situations. Changing the step over and tolerance seem to work in harmony. Use Depth limits. I actually told it to go deeper than the programed face + the tool rad in one of those toolpaths and it worked as opposed to not using depth limits. The tool stays down. Play with the upper and lower limits and your results will change. Save the backplot as geometry then analyze the results after the 1st try. You'll get a good idea of where the range in the depth limits need to be in order to stop the hop. Shut off check flowline motion for gouge. Backplot and verify work excellent and is sufficient in most cases. Gap settings. I almost never use line length extension here. Too many issues with that. On that same page in the last flowline op, 2nd op, I have check retract motion for gouge turned off as well. Pay close attention to the direction settings. You can get burned here real easy. All of this may seem a bit anal at first, and overkill for an idler bracket but when the part has to look good, the results of all this screwing around can really pay off. Good tools to have in your box. Blend and flowline are my favorite 3 axis motion tool paths.
  19. I'm almost done with the first op, just haven't had the time to finish it. I'll probably post it after you guys have moved on to part # 3.
  20. I ran Haas machines from 1997, 98. Using MP Master, I set my arcs to break at 180. Works with the VF3, VF4, and Makino with a 18i. Never had a problem with comp on helix bores or any other tool path as long as there was a straight line move on entry. No real logic behind my choice. Break at 180. seemed like a good compromise for code length, it worked so I stuck with it.
  21. "Oh and the last one done is a rotten egg!" I smell something.
  22. Started new job today and was on a VF2 SS. She may not machine as fast as the Makino but holy cow that rapid caught me off guard a few times. With the combination of open set-ups and low rigidity, and a very low quantity, testing to find max material removal rates is the last thing on my mind. The Makino S56 seemed slow (to me anyway) out of the gate compared to this.
  23. " I find it best to fillet at the end draw as much as you can sharp then put your fillet blends in at the end." My thoughts exactly. In a different post awhile back, James had a preference for the fillets. Large ones first then small, or the other way around. Care to chime in James?
  24. This thread may have not even existed had the Haas machines performed in a reasonable manner in the first place. I mean no major down time. I'm starting a new job next week and they have over 90% Haas machines in the shop, 2008 and newer. Just about one of everything Haas makes is in there. There also pushing some rather large / long tooling in a 40 taper VF3, cutting large steel burn outs. They love these machines. In the old shop I worked in I used a vf3 and vf4 circa 1998. These machines would beat the snot out of, and on occasion choke, using a 3" Walter facemill taking more than .12 axial DOC. Use a 1.25 dia. Walter and they ran good.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...