Lots of variables to what it is your really seeking? If you are just trying to machine a different side of the part as a 2nd or 3rd op as cncjb asked, then just pic the different plane (i.e.; back of part, pick back plane). If this is what you want and you want to change your WCS (preset zeroes for output) then go to view manager, pick the same plane that you want (i.e; back) and pick the geometry button to the left, then just pick a new point on the part that you want to be the X,Y and Z zero (if in a vise, typically upper left corner, top). Hope this gives you some ideas of what to try, there are a million ways to do different things.

MERCY!!!!! UNCLE, UNCLE!! LOL!!

quote: Morning Paul I believe weve hashed through this issue before, I had also ran it into Solidworks and all was fine. Hey Steve, Just got to this one, been having a row with Apps Guy in another area! LOL! Yeah, we went thru this on a daily basis before. They have ProE here and as the model gets more refined (part gets done in multiple stages), the more problems I have with the file. How's JPL treating ya?

quote: Here it is... I got a few minutes.LOL! I guess I don't know what to tell ya my friend. It will be close, but it won't be accurate! Change that radius a micron and oops! It just keeps getting worse the farther you go with cutter changes. It doesn't matter the surface unless its just a straight plane and you are doing a planar cut that is always on the same side at the same point of contact going the same direction, well, that would be a 2d cut, I suppose. That's just the math of it. 2D cutter comp doesn't work for a 3-d surface. If your point was to "force" a G42 into the program .....I give, I give!!! ROFL!!!! Hey, just out of curiosity, what happens when it drops down and comes back the other direction? Not right, So Solly! Again, you do it your way and I'll do it mine!

quote: This control shouldn't care what plane it's in. It should take that number from the program and shave a couple thou or add a couple thou.You just stated the magic words, it shouldn't matter what plane its in. G41 and G42 are planar only. G17 or G18 or G19. A surface is in 3-D going through the 2-D planes. G41 and G42 do not work. It's as simple as that. Think about cutting a surface, the point of contact on the surface is generally, constantly changing and while it may not be much of a movement it is still movement out of the (typical) G17 plane. quote: This control shouldn't care what plane it's in. It should take that number from the program and shave a couple thou or add a couple thou.It only shaves or ad's in the plane that it is set in, not all 3 axis (or more depending on what you are machining with). The only control that does this, has a patent on the concept and must have the 3 D vectors included with the G-Code to apply it. What happens when you have .01" comp set and the machine only moves .001" I wonder? And how does it work when the cutter comes back the other way, now the comp is in the opposite direction and you are gouging your surface. HOW DOES IT KNOW WHICH WAY TO GO? quote: Seems to me that you must know a lot!Not in most areas! LOL! But this one I do! quote: My anwser would be that from what I have learned... Version X has the capabilities to comp surfaces. I could still be incorrect in this. This is the correct method. The control does not comp 3-D surfaces. quote: Didn't mean to step on God's toes.... Don't worry, I keep 'em well hidden just in case! Got to....from Apps Guy! ROFL! I give, you guys cut it your way and I'll cut it mine! Works for me! LOL!

Maybe I missed the point in the original post but it seems to me the question was why doesn't he get G41, G42 when he outputs a 3-D Surface? Because it will NOT work on 3-D surfaces. You have to comp (albeit, bad choice of words) for the individual tool in the CAM Software. This is a multitude of data being calculated dependent upon where exactly the cutter is contacting the surface. It is generally constantly changing. Could I write a toolpath guaranteeing that 2-D comp values would work,,,,SURE,,,,BUT WHY would I? Nobody disputed that it's not in the software Chip! This is the correct way to get good numbers. If you change the tool rad, dia. etc., you must redo (pick a new tool description that describes the new tool) and re-post. Sorry James, but I still disagree, unless you are cutting always in one direction and maintain the exact same point of contact with the cutter, which on a 3-D surface is a rarity. Yes, You or I, can make a million work arounds to do things certain ways, just because of our experience, and spend hours upon hours redoing things, which if you do the following method, only takes a few seconds. But the general rule, especially for people that do not understand 3-D mathematics, is an emphatic "NO". Unless I am completely missing Chappyd's question. Simple....Done....finito....End of story!!! BTW, in a control, this type of compensation (3D tool vectoring and 5 axis comp) is a patented process One company owns it and it's NOT Fanuc or Siemens or Vickers or Mazak or Mach or xxxxor, etc.

read a little more and we have a Quickturn Steve, not an Integrex, so no sub spindle. Thanks Rob, but these are the same as my manuals. Still can't figure out these definitions for the chuck/jaw types and the turret so I'll have to experiment some to find the answers or wait for Mazak techs to respond!

Sorry to all of you, but your part might "look" like the picture, but mathematically it's not correct and no software is going to show you that, true surface mapping mathematics will. Laws of physics apply to machining and math doesn't change. Close just isn't close enough in the fields I've worked in, especially for surface mathematics and this "it worked" theory has been proven wrong mathematically ever since data points were first put together and surfaces were cut point to point with a ball or bull or straight or any other type of cutter. Sorry guys! Close, but not "correct"! By the way there is a big difference between true 3-D compensation and 2-D comparison math. I'd like to be proven wrong and belive that it's that easy, but many have tried for years while I was in the field around the world but all failed. Don't mean to pi$$ any of ya off but that's the facts ma'am!

Thanks guys. For the moment, it looks like I got around it with BA19 Parameter setting. Increased it from 1387475 to 1500000 and my tool was allowed to go to the chuck without barrier alarm. Not sure if this is the best fix or just happened to work. Thanks, Ron. Got 'em Rob and will look thru them after a bit. David, I have been trying to figure out the chuck definition and the turret tool offset combinations. Can't find any good drawings/descriptions in the book to make it more understandable. My barrier Parameters only go to BA132 Steve. Thanks guys for all the quick help.

I was wondering if anyone has any information/knowledge fo Chuck Barriers for EIA programs for the Mazak 640T Control. I have gone thru the manual and there are a number of parameters but not much information as to what really controls what. Am running an EIA program, bringing the turret close to the chuck but the barrier is stopping me 5mm away from my cut position in "Z". Company has run Mazatrol programs this close but this is the first EIA program and there seems to be different parameters to handle Mazatrol chuck barriers and EIA chuck barriers. Just wondering if anyone has experienced this also and if so, what parameter number or combination of parameters it is that handle the "Z" barrier definition. Thanks

quote: Your comparing a Makino to a Mazak. Like a porche to a VW +1000

If you are having problems with a particular solid being broke up into several solids, I have the same problem. stp Files from ProE don't always work in Mcam. We tried many different setting in ProE and couldn't get much better results. If we run it thru Solidworks and make an stp file, it appears to be better, but can sometimes still make multiple solids (although less) out of one original solid.

quote: Doesnt the print show the Revs. on it ?? True Hardmill, it should have a rev change box declaring what exactly was changed. Unfortunately anymore, everybody wants to go to the solid without making prints, which is what happens here. We have to go to th engineer and ask and then do what Ployd suggests to see the differences. For job shopping, sometimes getting ahold of the engineer can be a chore unto itself.

quote: So I disagree with the part of your quote above that I made bold.While I can agree that if you program your path to the center of the tool AND your ball is the correct diameter, in theory, it SHOULD be correct. Sorry, I just won't/don't have time to explain a very different style of programming and machining and explain that an operator has to make sure what is correct and what can vary. If I was doing it myself, I could do all the fiddling to make sure it was accurate, but I wouldn't add this to a "machinist's" ,giggle!, plate! Especially if the name of the game was production. Unfortunately, this is the viewpoint I commonly take when analyzing what will work and what won't. My view has always been to make a program that anyone can walk in off the street and run and understand to the "standard" methods. I have run across many surfaces where this method will not work, though, for the type of surface and the style/accuracy of the cut. As a matter of fact this was a big hold back to Mastercam sales a few years ago that the core math was a two dimensional system which is what the method you are describing above is, and could not do proper compensation on a ball or bull tool. The method above ONLY works on a ball and will not work on a bull nose tool. I know this will open Pandora's Box, but que sera, sera! My own opinion is that ALL setups/programming, software set ups etc. need to adhere to the commonly used industry standards so that a company can survive lay offs, walk outs, God forbid Death, etc. and still keep producing.

quote: Everything is possible... WHen I need Comp on a surface, I go into "Direction" (on old style toolpaths), add a linewith an angle on entry and Exit. Then go into the toolpath editor and edit the point where the lead in line and turn cutter comp on, then go to the end and turn it off. That does not work! quote: this is not possible on a surface toolpath. You would have to enter the new values for the reground tool in your tool parameters page and then regenerate the program. quote: Proceed with caution on adding g41 manually, surface geometry accuracy will vary (the more comped away from true diam. the more inaccurate the surface) Both are true. The cutter is very rarely at the edge. Comp only works on the side NOT the tip or any part of the ball, so your surface will be inaccurate. If you are making a mold or airfoil and must maintain surface accuracy, then you will have to program it for the ball radius that you are using.

Thanks, Ron. You've got mail!

Got it Tim and Ron. Had to use X, for some reason it just skipped over the P?

Looking through here at my G-Code list, it doesn't even show G94 or G95?

Thanks Ron, will send it in a second. I wonder why we don;t have these books here. we have 4 Mazaks, but only have operating manual, parameter list and the programming manual onl has 6 pages in it?

I need to dwell when locking up the steady rest. If programming in EIA is it still as simple as G04 P500.? or does it need the value as X. I can't find it in the book for dwelling. EIA information is extremely limited.

For a machine or MAstercam?

Crazy, Do you always have to use T01.01 for the offset? I have been using straight T0101 but have not been able to get cutter comp to work. Is this the solution? Programming a QuickTurn Nexxus 300 with a 640T control in EIA. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

are you initiating G65?

I like to keep it even more simple than that. If you are machining the normal 6 sides of a part, mcam already has top, bottom, right, left, etc. If you need a new WCS, just change it after selecting the plane. View Manager makes it so simple to select the new x,y,z or type the value in. If need be, create some geometry if you are off plane and select X and Y direction. For 4 or 5 axis, just use multiaxis or advanced mutiaxis and it turns the part for you, etc. Yes, you have to put a little more thought into it when machining on a tombstone or the like, but it really is not complex. This way I keep ALL programs for a part, usually 5 or more, in one file, not several like a lot of people tend to do. Make new workgroups with descriptive names, so you know what side, etc., you are cutting. I always program around the datum, NOT upper left corner of the part or some such nonsense. Where the model is designed (hopefully you get files from an engineer who knows how to design properly). If it works out to be that great, but why add more variables of error to what you are doing!! Hope this helps!

Just an update FYI: Hi Paul, Sorry it took so long to reply. I'm not sure if I replied to this already. Yes Verify doesn't simulate the move from 1 cut to the next correctly when then the rotary axis is involved. This should be fixed in X3. Thanks, Guess we'll stop programming till then!! ROFL! I know, use the workaround!