I am doing a basic pocket mill with helical entry at the center point on a round pocket. I have two issues. 1. Once helix entry is complete, tool path turns a hard 90* to walk over to start the spiral outward tool path. I would like to make this transition from entry to tool path smoother. 2. When the pocket mill is complete, the tool comes straight back up without forming a small arc away from the wall. We need a nice finish on the floor and wall so I would like to make small arcs transitioning from helical entry to floor spiral path. I would also like to arc the tool away from the wall slightly before retract. I know this will leave a minor blemish in the wall without it. I have tried every lead in/out setting I can think of and none of it makes any difference and adds no lead in/out. What am I forgetting here? Monday brain fog on a Wed maybe? Tool path 1.pdf

We don't have the converters but another shop in town does but says they experience the same issues. I am curious, what is the absolute preferred file type? We are always asked "what file do you want?" Regarding deleting duplicate lines, is that something that is just manually done or is there a filter to help with that?

I don't remember ever seeing double lines on curves of a part importing an IGS. Is there anything we can do to clean this up? I can actually select either line for a tool path so it will be a problem. Is this something we can have corrected as a saved out CAT file to import cleaner?

Thank you a ton! I figured it was something simple. However, we have both an STP and IGS file saved out of Catia. When I bring in the IGS, the contour lines on the profile of the part are double lines in some areas with a separation of .0002-.0003". I brought in the STP file and it is clean all day long! However, I have found working with a solid to be tricky or at least we have to generate surfaces to drive tool paths. Is there an easy way to filter the IGS file to clean up the geometry? I don't remember the last time we saw this issue and trying to figure out what is different with this part. Usually CAT files are very clean, without issues. I think someone started jacking with the MCX settings. Is this possibly a filter that must be set BEFORE importing the IGS?

I am not sure if the CAM settings got screwed up or if there is an issue with the model but when trying to chain a tool path, none of the lines are hot. I also tried a drill operation and cannot select any points either. I am little puzzled with this. Wondering if I need to close out MCX or if I have other issues? screen statisitcs show 240 trimmed surfaces.

LOL, those are some good examples and I think we probably think along the same lines in terms of maximizing resources and processes. I can tell you I have never been a button pusher and always been an owner/operator/cnc tech, so when I run something, I pay attention to everything. How the machine sounds, how long, part finish, tool life, document, document, document.... Thus the reason for buying a mill/turn lathe! We have some parts, I knew the process was not efficient and could be done better. Cut parts from bar, though I have not converted this stuff yet, should bring us from about 6min/part, down to 2min and look even better when we have less material waste, less setup, and better tolerances. Basically we turn a basic shape in a lathe, then move to the mil to complete it!!! Anyway, I get what you are saying about maximizing a machine, thus the reason I think this big 5 axis can find something great to do. It has enough, tool cap, memory, and inches of travel of the pallets to setup dozens of jobs and repeat those jobs with no setup or changes. Actually, when you compare the square inches of travels of say 4 sided pallets, this machine has the capacity of "25" 40x20 travel VMCs. Yes, I know it only has one spindle but I have to consider the expense of those 25 machines. Guess all I am saying is I think we can find some distinct advantage in there somehow! Just need some more head scratching... I did want to ask though and maybe divert our conversation to optimized tool paths. As you know, we have a max of 4000rpm on this machine. It is a very sore point for me!!! I realized in steels/Ti we will probably be mostly fine but would try to stay away from parts that need too many small cutter. However, Aluminum work has to be considered on this machine, even if it is not most efficient. So, how do you end up getting the data for chip thinning and estimating the feeds/speeds? I mean, the secret sauce in all of this is we are going way over what the tool OEM recommends for chip load but we light radials. I want to know how to figure how much to go and how to calculate the radial thrust tot he tool and part? Boss aint gunna be too happy to see a 1" carbide popped in half trying to push it. I was talking with a good friend that is currently reprogramming parts now shaving hours off operations with HSM. Tool life, time, and HP required are all improving. The reason I want/need to know is I am running some hard numbers with this machine and I have to determine if smart programming can make gravy. I only have 40hp to play with. If I go calculate numbers against a 100HP Makino, I lose big time so I need a different strategy. I have plenty of thrust. I believe 3000 in XY and 5000 in Z! I have 3 speed ranges so I can always throw down good torque in a cut. So if I can run a slower spindle with higher feeds and keep the spindle power in check which still popping off material efficiently, I am good. When I look at calculators, I am not sure they are taking chip thinning into consideration. These calcs with primarily with the chip load, material hardness, etc to estimate power and thrust in a cut. Thrust will distort part and break tools so I have to watch it but if effects of chip thinning are not realized, my calculations are not accurate!!

I will bite, and not from an argument standpoint, MRR (not MMR) to me is important because it is a measure of work getting done, which relates to when that part will be done. You start with a 50lb block, part is 2lbs, common sense says the faster I can make 48lbs of chips, the better. However, when I can compare MRR to loads, common sense says lower loads are what I prefer. Obviously I would rather the machine glide around a little more with less load than lesser maxed out cuts. Just easier on the machine. What I do is work with cut parameter calculators to determine the MRR, HP, torque, thrust, chips load, etc, to determine what is best. With these static values, there is no way to BS the system. You cannot study this with "HSM paths", you have to look at the specific cut parameter, DOC, stepover, SFM, chipload. I am curious which of these you are optimizing to get better results? Higher than normal chip load so instead of one big girl pass at say .005fpt, you are doing .010fpt on paper but with a lighter stepever so with chip thinning, you get that number pushed back down? With this big 5 axis, I have been told it is rated at 600ipm feeds and does an admirable job of holding that through the turns with the high power servos. Makino does have a nice product, rated at around 780ipm feeds. I realize it will go faster BUT that does not mean the old girl cannot be profitable. It can still handle HSM paths and has 9megs of memory to handle a pretty intense program. I think I did misleas on Ti. Ti is tricky and we most certainly do NOT push tooling to breakage in that stuff. I do that in Aluminum and sometimes steels. Ti has specific properties like very low thermal conductivity, mod of elasticity, work hardening issues, etc that make it special. What is likes is high feed, low speed, so HSM paths are great! This is exactly where we would like to run high DOC, high feed, low stepover, low rpm. However, thrust is up STILL because of the DOC. Also, I am curious as to the "stresses" of the parts? Where do you get that? localized heat generation can cause distortion and deflection can force finish passes but I have read some of this and they make it sound like there is no internal stresses at all from heat treat!!! I mean ALL 2024-T3 has internal stress and some parts will curl up like a pretzel regardless of machining and you have to remove most of the material, let it spring, then cut again. Ron, I am all ears here! I am not trying to preach, just sharing what I know or think I know. I am curious what your approach would be if you have only 4000rpm, 600ipm, and 40hp? gearbox machine so should be able to apply good torque at at rpm. By the way, there is a webinar done by Makino where their materials engineer did some serious testing in Ti cuts. They indicate a LOT of thrust is needed in Ti because you need to run a higher chip and lower speed. SFM was the biggest contributor to heat generation in the cut this tool wear. Very interesting vid.

Well I don't mean to throw them ALL under the bus, I am sure I have sore point...like trying to get what I friggin want in a program!!...lol Like I know what I want, now I have to tell MCX what I want.... that can start to suck... Guess I know too many programmers that see it cut like a dream on the screen and think, "the boss is going to love it". however, I also see these programs that you are like, "WTF!!!???" SLOW! Then you apply fanciness. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the new paths but I also know that MRR is MRR and time is time. When you run a spindle at 20% load, then reprogram to 100% load, you can't put all that savings on the program paths. Some of that is just using the tool better. I have a problem in that I always want things pushed until something gives so I know where the line is. Usually either the spindle is out of poop or the tool blows up. Then we know! lol Probably more expensive that way but I would be damn embarrassed if someone came in and reprogrammed my work to less than half the time taken. I think some of my smarter work has come from working with slower machines. Every time you see it chase a new tool, you think "how can I do this smarter or better". Some of that has come from time consuming post edits. Sorry if I seem to attack programmers. I have learned a lot here. I just have worked back and forth on some of the newer paths and found that they can work well in certain apps but like in Ti work, I don't know. Never the less, this big machine can still employ some modern paths but it is a big girl, will run big parts, with big cutters, and that usually gets a little different approach because I don't want the machine broke over it.

Politely, I don't need an education in business operations. I walk around with a calculator daily finding ways to improve things, including knocking 3sec off of a tool change that saves us 1.5hrs on one job! I am as lean as it gets. I think a lot of people seem to think this 5 axis is so ancient, it can't possibly be efficient! Trust me, I am closely analyized it and know what it needs to be working on and what paths will make the best of it. I realize many programmers look at that program, see that they shaved time, but have no CLUE on tooling, vibration, insert life, machine tool life, spindle life, etc. I can tell you the modernd comparable Makino today is only about 20% faster than what we have and it is a LOT more than 20% more expensive. I really do feel that in the right work and with a special eye on utilizing the machines strong points, it can work out well. Example, we have VMC with a pretty slow tool changer. We know we need more parts on the table to maximize time per tool. We also find slick ways to use the same tool for more operations. Either custom grind tools, etc. We drill a hole in plastic with an endmill because it saves a tool change. Prob saved 30sec/part right there. In the real world of machining, there are only a few factors, MRR, time, tooling life, $$. I look at all of them a LOT.....lol

Fog, I am curious, would it be easier to start with a generic 5 axis post or work with what you have as a 3 axis and add the other stuff? As you mentioned though, getting that sample code might be tricky. I know when we stepped into Dynapath, some guys ran out the door saying "its all wrong!@!" lol Once you know what you are looking for, it gets easier... are you just wanting the serial# or what?

Ron, thanks, I will forward info to your email. No, I am not offended, I just have to realize others don't know the situation. Right now we need to get what we need to get it working as economical as possible while NOT sacrificing quality. We come from making aerospace components so quality in that sector comes before eating and sleeping according to Boeing....lol In a nutshell the machine was sort of dropped in our lap and apparently we are the only ones that see value in it, possibly with a control upgrade later. High point would be glass scales throughout, 65" cube travels, full 5 axis contouring, probing, heavy build meant to last many decades. Meant for steel and Ti work. Just finding quite a fight for this type of work. Either companies run this stuff inhouse or we compete with China. My only gripe is the majority of functions are hydraulic rather than electric. I like electric, it goes faster usually. However, I have tweak-itis so if I run the machine, i will probably be climbing all over it while running, trying to figure workarounds on the sore points. These machines are hailed as very accurate, holding a few tenths over 5ft of travel. I think the intended goal is to get the machine chewing on something, assess how much we like it and what we might want to do to upgrade it, and start thinking about upgrade plans. An ungrade on this machine will take some serious time. We really need to be ahead and have things well planned before we start with that effort.

Let me be clear on this, I have learned in this business that there will always be a LOT of people crunching numbers ( I actually do it for a living if you can believe it) and telling me why spending more money with them is the way to go. I am not an idiot and fully realize the returns. HOWEVER, until you have enough work to warrant spending, it does NOT make sense. The machine needs to be put to work doing something, pay for itself and the floor it sits on, then we can discuss retros. WHILE IT IS RUNNING. I envy the shops that have work. We cannot catch a break so we end up with this mess. This machine will run out at 600ipm fd/rpd with look ahead. I am still trying to learn what the blocks/sec is on it. See the difference here is you go to a customer currently making parts, then tell them how to go faster... I can crunch those numbers but "currently making parts" is where we need to be first. I lost count of how many shops failed recently with the mindset of spend more and they will come. Then they just want it cheaper. when we find work that will give a 500K return in a year, I will happily hand you 100K to retro that machine to what it should be..

If you write posts as well as you spell, i can't wait to invest! LOL All kidding aside, I am curious of your background? Reason I ask is your opinion of it seems pretty misinformed IMO. I don't think there was anything this control could not do when compared to other controls of the era. I know lots of people talking about "newer paths" but that does not mean smart programming cannot make it work well. Some of those paths have been well proven to be MUCH harder on the machine and you are not going to throw 5000lb of steel in a machine and kick this cool Trochoidal path at it without planning new lead screws in the budget annually. I should clarify this is not a budget VMC, this was a flagship machine that would cost big dollars to replace.

Well, Siemens is Acramatic and still seems to be 'out there'. I think especially bigger machines like this are going to run until they can't run anymore due to the expense of recontrolling and even then, this would should prove worthy of a recontrol. I do know how to edit a post to a degree but I would not say I have to totally mastered. I think the key here might be starting with the closest thing we can. Foghorn - I certainly agree on some good sample code to work with. Something i am not yet sure how to obtain because the programming manual is not all that helpful. I was really hoping to find even a good 3 axis post to start generating proper code to see how it looks and maybe just add the 5 axis stuff to it... Or at least know how it should go.

Only one reply? Is this a control no one works with? I am surprised. At this point, I would like to find posting information for ANY Acramatic or Siemens product! Seems about everything out there is Fanuc or Fanuc. Is this not the place to ask for post editing advice? Just a vendor network? I don't mean to step on toes.

As I understand it, the last time we had the dealer "make one", it was an expensive waste of our time as we had big man hours in just trying to explain what was needed. In short, I need to be in a better position to mod the posts. Will save time and headaches down the road. Just hoping to find something that is a little closer to start with. Not yet sure if a more generic 5 axis is better than say an Acramatic 3 axis and adding all the other stuff to it. I say contact other shops because I am sure someone probably got this figured out by now.

I am at odds with this one. I have a proven out dynapath post we used years ago. However, I have our Haas post that I spent a LOT of time with tuning some simple things like turning on spindle, dwells, running table from G54-G57, then G57-G54, etc. Just little things. I have never really modified a dynapath post so I am wondering which way I should go on this? I am just going to assume what I am looking for is not really floating around out there. I guess it might be that I totally forgot how I got the subroutines in there. I think I might have actually got a post with all this in it. I am sold on subs and use this as standard programming for multiple offsets now. I set a variable in when programming, and the post will output which ever offsets I desire repeated so when I repeat 3x, it will post out G54, G55, G56, G57. Problem is I think subs are called a bit different with the dynapath.

I was going to contact some local shops to see where they might have found a post for this but so far, I guess the dealer option is "make one". This can't be the only machine out there and I have experience modding posts but man, they gotta be somewhat close! This machine has the standard B axis like any HMC but has spindle tilt as the A axis. This makes any angled operations tricky to program and execute. I am not sure if I the settings are wrong or what. I am not sure if I should be working with a post for an acramatic and work the other axis in or keep working with a generic 5 axis. Programming is a bit different than std Fanuc.

I have it up and running. I thought there were issues but seems to post fine. I confirmed with a friend usually a totally different post that they get the "error when posting" message every time but never had an issues and posts out fine. They too have moved their post up through several revisions. I think there must be some added stuff in X5 that is not in the post? Extra variables that are not defined? I will have to try and work through the update file to see but I ran several tools on a test and all seems fine.

I received a post that I am trying to load into X5. I have went through all the typical steps of previous versions by adding the mmd and control file in "cnc machines" and adding the pst file in "mill/posts". If open the default mill post for paths, I can go and "replace" with the new post but when just selecting a machine from the machine/mill list, it is not showing up in the file list. Also, X5 did an "update" on the post since it was from a previous version. It created a mod sheet in the post directory. X5 will post what looks to be correct for what little I tested, but does come up with a "post error" every time it posts. I am wondering how I can figure out what the error is? The window does as if I want to see what the errors are but the screen never opens with an error list.

A customer is asking me to create engraving paths from a logo image. I have never done such a thing at all. I played with MCX a bit to induct an image but creates very jagged lines, far from crisp. Should I be working with graphics software like illustrator to edit the image or can MCX handle this? Seem pretty frustrating.

Thanks for the heads up guys. Not to seem pessimistic but I have just never had good luck with radial feeding with small endmills. I try to plunge where I can to get rid of some material. In this operation, there is only about 30sec of work for this EM. Anyone want to post a pic of what an optimized corner clean up would look like? I also need to feather it in in which I typically just use lead in/out and adjust to make a nice transition. When I way 15% engagement, that is measured in verify in the corner. However, I realize that when the tool turns, you effectively double that engagement for an instant when changing direction.

I have an inner profile that requires the corners be finished with an 1/8" EM. Material is 4140 Annealed. I have had plenty of problems trying to cut steels with 1/8" EMs. I think I drilled the corners before with 1/8" EM to reduce the load in the corners but it wastes a lot of time. It is programmed right now to do full depth (.300) and run multi passes with about 15% radial engagement. I would prefer to remove the drilling unless absolutely needed. I am sure I could add passes but at some point, it started to make more sense to drill since that is where the tool would break, in the corner. edit: My error. I apparently screwed up when naming the drill operation. As I decided to just plunge mill the corners with the 1/8" EM, I realized I already thought to do that last time but named it "drill" instead of "plunge mill". We should be just fine with this in this case. roughly a 30% engagement in the plunge. Notes say it worked fine last batch.

I have an inner profile that requires the corners be finished with an 1/8" EM, following a 3/8" EM. Material is 4140 Annealed. I have had plenty of problems trying to cut steels with 1/8" EMs. I think I drilled the corners before with 1/8" EM to reduce the load in the corners but it wastes a lot of time. It is programmed right now to do full depth (.300) and run multi passes with about 15% radial engagement. I would prefer to remove the drilling unless absolutely needed. I am sure I could add passes but at some point, it started to make more sense to drill since that is where the tool would break, in the corner.

I think that is all I am trying to arrive at - wasting time pulling the tool. I just want the finish pass to start right after roughing, with the tool still down. I was trying to avoid for chaining, etc as well I have never linked any ops. Is this considered a "remachining" op?