http://www.onsrud.co...oc/Carbide-Burr This is what we use. You can run the Burr or Carbone Graphite ones pretty fast for roughing(leave .02"-.015"). Then just finish with carbide. I usually start with 4000rpm at 30-40ipm depending on the hangout and depth of cut, for roughing. With dynamic milling I've cut G10 with a 3/4 or 1/2dia. Diamond Burr at 3500rpm @ 75-100ipm, full radial d.o.c., 15% stepover. Like butta. Haven't gotten the chance to try dynamic milling on Carbon Fiber yet though. Carbon fiber tends to delaminate a little easier though. Just food for thought. 3.750" stick out maybe a bit of an issue though.

Right below that is a box that should be checked, labeled "Center on point". I would post a screen shot, but for some reason I can no longer post attachments from my account. Any admins out there that can help me out with that?

Excellent! .0002" is not bad at all. Glad to hear you resolved this.

Are you using "Center on entry point" on your entry motion? Pick your pocket chains and then pick the point at the end. Should work.

Also, I like to use "Wear" on my comp (control can take advantage of it), I use a tighter cut tolerance (.0005-.0001, code heavy, I know), and "Angle Increment" checked on. My setup is a table/table though. I know the head/head is a bit harder to trouble shoot.

One thing I found that may be giving you a problem with your toolpath is the geometry that you used for your chains. The upper rail has lines at the ends, arcs in the corners, and an arc at the center of the chain, while the lower rail has lines on the ends, arcs at the corners and a spline in the middle. In my experience this is always been a no-no for swarf. Both upper and lower rails must match as closely as possible for the control points to match. Try making a three point arc from your spline at the lower rail, re pick your geo, regen and try it again.

Are you getting really big gouging on the floors? Is it on the walls as well? This maybe due to the multi passes that you have in your toolpath. I've never really liked the way milti pass work in this toolpath. Gouging was one of the main reasons. I know it's tough to get around it on a part like this though. If you look closely from a side view you'll see that your tough passes are not equal in depth.

No Vericut here, but in my opinion, if you're not seeing it in MC then your post isn't doing what you programmed or you control isn't doing what your code is asking of it. I've had similar problems with swarf when it comes to keeping the tool of the floor, so I end up using something like 5-axis Curve instead. I feel you have much more control over you tool on floors with it. Put up a sample file, I'll be happy to look into it and do a quick double check for you.

I've machined rubber, foam, and multiple types of urethane. The result are always less than desirable on the finish and fit no matter how you cut it. That's why these types of things are molded. Not trying to knock the hind out of your sails. Just my 2 pennies. Have fun.

It can be done. Choose your -3.00 as the top of the stock in you toolpath linking parameters and 0.00 for your depth and it should ramp up. Be sure to set you cut parameters to Contour Ramp and adjust the settings to your liking.

JMahon, looks like you're on the right track. One thing you want to look out for though, is your retracts at the end of each port toolpath. A lot of times you'll have to adjust the exit move to avoid shanking the tool or gouging the part with the cutter. If you verify your part, you'll see what I mean. Looks like you're getting some gouging on the exits. I used to do this type of port work every day for about 5 years... the old fashion way, like Millman described above. Fun work.

Are you using a lollipop cutter that was created in X6 or another earlier version of MC. Has the tool been properly updated for X7. Just a thought. Also, I've had issues in the past with customer supplied .stp files, when doing under cut operations. For some reason my install of the release of X7 didn't play well with those files. I had to open the .stp files in SolidWorks and save them back to .xt files for it to work properly in early X7. Not sure if that's was just my install or an X7 thing though, I haven't had that problem in MU2. Another thing to check though.

I tried a few things with your 8mm bullnose and it looks like it's producing those small gouges in the gaps of the surface blends. If you try a tool that's closer to your small fillet radius at the bottom of the feature (about .125" ball will do) it will give you a great tool path. I'm all for saving time and being efficient, but some times(most of the time) the short cuts are what get you in trouble. Ask me how I know.

Go into your tool definition and check your tool. The first time that I checked it, the tool was labeled a .500"dia. ball endmill, but it was rendering some type of bullnose endmill in verify. Regenerated the toolpath with a new .500" ball endmil and it work fine. No gouging. What type of cutter are you trying do this with? I'm thinking your cutter might be too big and the toolpath is trying to force it when it blends with that small radius at the bottom with the rest of the part.

It took about 10 seconds over here. Play with the filter setting until it gives you good results. Sometimes kicking the total tolerance up a bit will still give you good results if you have the right filter settings. Try .0005" on your total tolerance, if that's acceptable.

Thanks for the vote James. Not sure if it's the case in this instance, but some of the times our quotes aren't the cheapest. There's a very good reason for that... We are amongst the best in the industry at what we do. The first part(quotes), I have no say in, but the second part(being the best at what we do), is the that part I and other very smart and dedicated people here do. And as you know, we de it very well.

Yup. After you've converted to surfaces and fix the normal to what you want, you can always try the Solids > From Surfaces feature to make it back into a solid. Doesn't always make it back into one solid but it's worth a try.

Your solid should already have all normals pointing outward away from the mass. The Verisurf tool will do what your need for Surfaces.

I like using Flowline. You spiral the toolpath from the top down or bottom up and use the "Direction" settings to control your lead/lead out.

+1 on that.

Any program, any computer... if completely flooded with information will bog. I have a relatively beefy rig and I get close to maxing it out every day. I run a lot of complex parts, full 5-axis, and high speed toolpaths which usually take tons of memory to process, so that has a lot to do with it. With a part like this, most toolpaths will bog your computer just on selecting your surfaces.

I'm with Mark on this one. Containment boundary with a little extra offset should do the trick. Most likely the reason your getting this retract is because of the inconsistency in the fillet radius as it blends to the rest of the part.

I took a look at your toolpath there. Looks like you have it going across the surface. I would turn the machine angle 90 degrees in either direction if your conditions allow. This will generate less code for you and let the tool do a better job on your finish.

If you're already using SolidWorks, why not look into their PDMworks. That should cover the tracking that you're looking for. I've heard it's full time job running PLM or PDM though. So if you have enough work flowing through it you may need to designate an administrator to run it for you.

Ah yes, this is one of those settings that I usually set and forget on install. Haven't had to touch this one since X3, I believe.