Jump to content

Welcome to eMastercam

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:

Myth Project

Verified Members
  • Posts

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Myth Project

  • Birthday 11/07/1981

Uncategorized

  • Location
    Waxahachie, Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

920 profile views

Myth Project's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

22

Reputation

  1. Yeah, contouring the chamfers may be a better, just need to make sure there is enough clearance with my 4th axis and fixturing to achieve it without issue. The material is 45HRC 13-8, work holding rigidity is he issue with pushing hard. Can it be pushed harder? Yes. I need one good part for the order. If I push it and it fails, I saved no time. I do understand what you are saying, but I do not work for a production shop, we are prototype with crazy materials and tough tolerances. I truly believe most shops no quote the jobs we get... All that said, I do very much appreciate any and all advice about machining practices, so you haven't offended me at all. I'm not the sensitive type of machinist. I will also look at Dynamic milling the faces, see what it'll look like. Thanks for the insight!
  2. Odd, when I post only the center drill, (operation 18), this is what I get... % O0000(MC2022) ( T4 | 1/8 C'DRILL | H4 ) G20 G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90 ( SPOT DRILL HOLES ) T4 M6 G0 G90 G59 X-.975 Y-.5 A90. S2100 M3 G43 H4 Z1.81 M8 G98 G82 Z.93 R1.1 P.05 F2. X-1.25 Y.185 Z.9456 A150. R1.1156 Y0. Z1.2028 A225. R1.3728 X-.975 Y-.5 Z.93 A270. R1.1 X-1.25 Y.3536 Z.9586 A315. R1.1286 G80 M5 G91 G28 Z0. M9 G28 X0. Y0. A0. M30 % So, I'm not sure what's different in what we are looking at.
  3. Alright, I'm trying to program a part and I'm having issues while using the techniques I've used for years. I'm attaching the file for reference. I generally program my 4th axis through Transform Rotating Toolpaths and through creating different planes at the different angles. I also will select drill toolpaths and enable Rotary Axis Control so that I can get all the holes around a part. Sometimes I'll use the other, less practical methods, but not often. In MCAM2022 I'm having issues running my verify. It will verify all operations where the Rotary Axis Control is off (1-17), or the ones where it's on (18-20), but will error out when I try to verify all at once (1-20). Any advice? Example.mcam
  4. Doesn't bother me any, I'm always on board to learn more. Did you mess with tightening the tolerances?
  5. Alright, here's what I've discovered. QC tried using my MX9 file and had the same issue and asked me to try regenerating the toolpath, expecting it would fail. They weren't sure how I managed to get a clean toolpath on that folder. They also told me that loosening my Total Tolerances in my flowline toolpath would allow the path to work. I tried, but it added way more air time to the path than I previously had. So after talking with them, I began to wonder why my MX9 would work where theirs would not... The answer, I tightened my tolerances in my MX9 configuration. After carrying over my modifications to MC-2017, it will now regenerate the toolpaths exactly like it had in MX9. For those who would like to know, the settings I changed are as follows: Chaining Tolerance: .0001 Planar Tolerance: .0002 Minimum Arc Tolerance: .0002 Curve Minimum Step Size: .0001 Curve Maximum Step Size: 100.0 Curve Chordal Deviation: .0002 Maximum Surface Deviation: .00005 Toolpath Tolerance: .0001 Give this a shot and see what it does for y'all! Thanks everyone! James
  6. Thanks Millman, I've emailed QC, I'll update one I get a response from them. That is an interesting support for your 4th axis, looks nice.
  7. I'll try using 50/50 and turning off the smooth setting in the future, see if that improves my results. I have started increasing the gap size for keeping the tool down, but your suggestion may work better. I'm not offended Millman, I honestly appreciate any and all input, thank you. It is near impossible to learn without taking suggestions and information from different perspectives. The reason I'm working the surfaces from the 0 deg rotation is because of the length of the part, along with the amount of material being removed, the part will bow under the pressure of the live center. We've discovered it works better to lock the part in a vise for stability once we hit the 0 deg rotation. I agree though, it would be nice to use a shorter tool... Had some issues with the .0625 breaking... Also, I was using 2017 to show the toolpath, I just didn't use the flowline under the geom tab. 2017 makes it look all crazy, and that's why it won't regen. It doesn't see it the same way it was seen before, which is what I'm finding odd. Why is it now incapable of creating a smooth toolpath on geometry that it has pathed previously? Send the file to QC? I'm not sure who you mean, please elaborate. I've never used Surface Finish Blend, but I will look into how to use it in the future to see if it improves my processes. Thanks for the tip.
  8. I also realize the tool will not fit all the way into the tightest corners, it's a surface deburr.
  9. The path wasn't that ugly, it gets wonky once you try viewing them in MC-2017...
  10. I'm modifying a program written in MX9. I have a working flowline surface, but if I try to regenerate it in 2017 it says there is now a "Flowline surface conflict found, toolpath not possible"... The only work around I've found for this is making multiple flowline surface folders and selecting only a few surfaces at a time. Turning what was once one folder into 15 folders... Help or advice? I'll attach the file for clarity, the folder in question is folder #79. Thanks! James 504626-6.7z
  11. Thank you so much! Sorry I hadn't responded sooner, out of town in training this week. I'll try the modification when I get back to the shop.
  12. I'll upload the MX9 file, PST and the NC file. I haven't tried contacting MLC CAD, but will give them a shout if you think it'll help. 505253-2 OP-1.NC 505253-2.mcx-9 MPFAN.pst
  13. I've noticed issues when I transform toolpaths and use incremental... I think it's a post issue, which is why I am seeking help here. The issue is, when I transform translate a toolpath and use incremental to reduce program size, if I have a rotation, it will still be in incremental during the rotation and won't go back to absolute until the next X axis or Y axis motion. I've had this bite me several times and was wondering if there's a way to make it go back to absolute on the A axis motion as well? Maybe have it end subroutines with a G90 or something. Any ideas??? Thanks!
  14. I apologize if I hurt your feelings... I'm used to a ball busting machine shop, and sarcasm does run rampid... There were a lot of variables, so people were having some fun while they were waiting on a response. I'm sure no one meant harm, but if ya can't take a joke......... Good luck on finding the help ya need!

Join us!

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.

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...