Met with Schutte. Their software seems relatively straight forward though I'd still like to do a deeper dive with it. My main concern is how to drive the machine to get the geometry we want and the support to get up to speed having not ground told in the past.  Are their any independent CAM type software out there? Independent folks for start up support?

Those that have bought used machines, was the software bought along with the machine?

Sounds like not a cheap endeavor. How's the software for schutte? I'd imagine that's the magic piece of the puzzle to creating what what you want and tweaking it. 

We're a small facility focused on complex part production. What would you figured we'd spend to bring cutter production in house? Something like an MX machine from Anca I'd imagine. It seems we could facilitate healthy cycle time savings if we could produce specialty cutters quickly and make geometry adjustments as needed. Thoughts?

If you've programmed and or used a Kme CNC tombstone, what's your feedback? I'm looking at a couple for our Makino a51nx cell. 3+2 work obviously that's under 10" diameter swing. I'm looking at a unit that is a single 10" platter. I'm feeling it will be significantly more robust than the smaller units. This will go in our mmc2/r cell so the wireless nature of it is awesome. Feedback welcomed!

A handy tool, Josh. Thanks. 

I have an impeller I'm working on. In multiaxis morph when I select a solid face as my drive geometry I get no toolpath creation. When I create a surface from the solid and flip its normal and use this for my drive geometry I get a toolpath created. It's almost like the solid's "normals" are incorrect. Is there a way to fix this and use the solid face for my selection?

3 hours ago, Leon82 said:

I wish the shrinkers had a thru hole instead of the stop, or the option for either.

 

Most tools are 4 or 6 inches long or 5 if you find an oddball.

 

For example a cid 3/4 long endmill has about 3.2 loc but will stick out 4" from a haimer holder when it's bottomed out

Check out maritool. Hole all the way through.

2 hours ago, gcode said:

are you running an SSD??

Have tried SSD and spinny disk. Roughly the same result it seems. Maybe slightly faster with the SSD. 

35 minutes ago, JParis said:

Too much, you're starving your system of memory to function....I try to never go above 70-75%

Might have to wait for SP2...that seems to address some performance issues

 

Thanks. 

Does anyone see sluggishness around 200 toolpaths and a 30-40 MB file size?

I've been experiencing this for years across multiple releases and patches and gets really old. Opening toolpath parameters, selecting drive and check surfaces, boundary box selection, just about everything slows down. 

Windows 7  4 core 3.7GHz processor  32GB RAM 

I have my memory buffering set to 95%

Anything else I can change here?

What does Moldplus give someone that MC doesn't? 

Thanks!

Does surface finish parallel still exist somewhere inside of 2018? For some simple tasks it is far easier to use than raster.

It seems that once i reach about 80 toolpaths with a mix of 2D, 3D and a couple multi axis toolpaths along with 3-5 stock models that MC falls on its face performance wise. It begins to take a second or two to start a new toolpath or open an existing one. What settings can I change if any to help with this?

I'm running a fairly stout desktop that I feel like this shouldn't be an issue. Windows 7 64-bit. MC is running of a solid state. Nvidia K4000. Intel Xeon E5-1620 3.7 GHz. 32.0GB RAM

We looked at mt and I would feel more comfortable with a regular post and run Vericut which we already have. Having the ability to modify the post on the standard side seems like a big deal. Not so locked in I guess. Thoughts?

Anyone have experience programming a Mori NT without Mill turn? Who is the best to get the post from?

They have their place in the Makino lineup. A lot of times Makino is adding a 5th axis to their a51/61 lineup for the production machining side of the their business. From talking with them on Monday, when they use that configuration for high volume applications they are only going to B 90 degrees to hit component features. This machine eliminates the added 5th which is typically a higher total cost and longer integration. One of their direct competitors in this space and the semi conductor space is Grob. Large volumes of machines in an automated cell and high removal rates. From my understanding this machine has significantly higher dynamics than the Grob lineup and is much more robust from a pure material removal standpoint which stands to reason based on its kinematic arrangement compared to Grob, virtually no overhangs. The a500z is build on the a61 platform.  You're not far off on price. Consider vast majority of the parts for this machine have already been time tested on the a61nx and literally they aren't any different than the a61nx. Only something like 15% of the parts for this machine are new items for production and support from spare parts inventory. That's a BIG deal when bringing a new machine to market.  

There is a huge difference is machine dynamics and tool change time. 

Machine cost is significant different as well. 

Thanks for all the replies. A real downside to this setup for us after talking with Makino today will be that we cannot get to features that you would typically machine on a trunnion at 90+ degrees. No setting up a pyramid style fixture with 3 or 4 vises that you can machine 5 sides of multiple parts at a time. The kinematic arrangement just doesn't allow it.  

On the Mastercam programming side of the equation, would I set up my planes just like a machine where the rotaries are true to X,Y and Z?

Great explanations from everyone. I really appreciate it. I like looking at it from a math stands point. Makes a lot of sense for me that way. 

Checking out the machine tomorrow and wanted to better understand what questions to ask about the kinematic arrangement and how a post would handle the math. 

Maybe put this is our cell with the a51nx and robot. 

6 hours ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

No, you aren't missing anything. You can't machine a chamfer at B45, the way you would with a Trunnion that has the axes mounted orthogonally. The machine configuration just doesn't work that way. Only at B0 and B180 is the face of the part perpendicular to the spindle. You can't just kick the Secondary to 45 degrees, and machine a flat chamfer, like you would with the MX-520. The kinematics are "funky" for sure.

But can you get one of the chamfers perpendicular with the spindle?

18 minutes ago, C^Millman said:

You are over thinking this. The Spindle will go normal real easy. By having a nutating head you have a lot of freedom with regards to angles. Here is a screen shot to hopefully help you see what looks odd is okay as long as it gets the job done.

 

I get how it works with a head table design but don't think it is the same when you have a table table design like the a500z in the original link is it? 

I have seen the design before, just having trouble wrapping the brain around something simple on a trunnion A,C machine like machining a face at A-45 C0.  

I cannot draw a scenario in the attached file where one of the chamfers on the edge of the part is normal to the spindle. Am I missing something?

I'm trying to wrap my brain around doing something simple on a 5 axis with this configuration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu5gVKcbJhE

Take a cube and put a 45 degree chamfer on the edges with the end of an endmill. Doesn't seem as though you can get the chamfered faces normal to the spindle at all. I drew the axis combination in MC2018 and couldn;t make any headway. Thoughts???

Axis Combination.mcam