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:
under "Cut Pattern" there's a "Projection" at the bottom of the screen. Change that from Normal to Plane, to Normal to Surface, and set the value very small (0.001" if you already projected your 3d curves onto the surface). the problem is like JP said, both surfaced are getting your pojection. The Normal to Surface projection distance can stop the toolpath from 'finding' that second surface. If no toolpath forms, make your projection distance higher, like 0.005" and so forth
Can you attach your starting geometry. The distance from your geometry to the sphere is going to affect how it's wrapped. Depending on the size of your laces, the size of the laces and the distance away from the centre of your sphere will have to be proportional to the radius. it may still end up waterfalling in the plane direction
Up until last week though it seemed to generate around the same speed as the 'old' path? If you want to attach the file click on "More reply Options" next to the Post button, and then there's a big paper clip. or go to something likw www.wetransfer.com and then post the link
yes something like that would work too (I would consider a plane to be a 'geometrical', but I'm just trying to backstep here). There would have to be an instance of reference for the trim to happen, and that trim could be associative, absolutely - because it could just act as an operation occurring after the toolpath is created.
In that case, isn't Mastercam's trim associative since if you change the toolpath and you use toolpath trim, the trim is regenerated when you regenerate the path?
I think we're talking about two different things - trimming, and editing. Trimming needs a reference, like a plane, a piece of geometry or some kind of entity to reference. Editing means selecting a series of points, or dictating some points you want to delete. With editing, the reference could change with the stepover etc. so I don't see how that could be associative in any software without creating a potentially dangerous path
The only way a cam system could make a trim associative is if geometry was used for the trim. If you change your stepover you would lose your place of reference that the trim happened at ... bad bad things would happen if the software decides where it thinks you trimmed things
UR as in Universal Robots? if so, see attached - just made a really simple program. Can't attach because of the file type, but the contents are:
def urtest():
!Start of Program()
movej([0.000000,0.000000,1.570796,1.570796,1.570796,0.000000],v=3.141593)
movel(p[0.671300, 0.163891, 0.380474, 0.000000, 1.570796, 0.000000],v=1.000000,r=0.01)
movel(p[0.759937, 0.163891, 0.380474, 0.000000, 1.570796, 0.000000],v=1.000000,r=0.01)
movel(p[0.759937, 0.163891, 0.380474, 0.000000, 1.570796, 0.000000],v=1.000000,r=0.01)
movel(p[0.759937, 0.163891, 0.607950, 0.000000, 1.570796, 0.000000],v=1.000000,r=0.01)
movel(p[0.759920, 0.163891, 0.607981, 0.000000, 1.570824, 0.000000],v=1.000000,r=0.01)
!This is the end of the program()
end
If it's a series of steps without a specific requirement this is pretty easy to write as a nethook/chook.
ie: if you always open a model, change the color of everything, change the planes of everything etc.
it's when you start to realize the individual things you do on an incremental basis but you do every time (ie: only change the colors of certain geometry, change the plane to a different setting depending on where the model is) etc. it starts to get hard to assign a macro/add on to it. You also then need to maintain it as versions of Mastercam go forward.
More automated / less flexible
much easier said than done - would be less of a forum migration and more of a business merger.. a lot of our training manuals etc. are sold through this site using the same account system, as well as file hosting for samples/tutorials. Also probably not up to Jim, myself, webby, daniel etc.
It probably depends on the type of work you're doing. If I'm doing 5-axis work I prefer surfaces every time as selecting and manipulating them in non-parametric ways is preferable (ie: you might just want to extend or offset a surface) .. whereas for drilling I vastly prefer solids because you can get hole data
I've seen the linking outside containment boundary, don't fault you there - I only use it in cases where this isn't an issue. There's a stock-to-leave value for check surfaces that works on the top of surfaces, maybe not on the 'sides' as they approach 90.
There's too much good stuff in hybrid to not add to it, I don't believe it will be abandoned in favor of a different type of path
morph between curves will try to cut the whole surface/solid face you select, not just stay between the curves. the curves are just used to define the 'pattern' of the stepover. Try using a 2D containment boundary under cut pattern, or set some check surfaces in collision control and tell it to trim the toolpath between gouges, and set your linking parameters for gaps to follow surface
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.