Verified Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

1 Follower

About Chally72

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

695 profile views
  1. Chally72

    Renishaw Probing Add-on

    Inspection+ is using a different, less extensive calibration cycle than Productivity+. Keep in mind that compensation errors can be greater, especially when measuring off-angle components. I've used both extensively. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but to go over a quick bullet point summary: CIMCO Probing handles 95% of probing applications, targeting the most common use cases for process control or workpiece setup, with basic GoTo loop options. CIMCO probing is not limited to Renishaw hardware. Initial integration time is vastly reduced because CIMCO probing leverages the macros already installed on the machine controller for probing, and does not require things like dedicating variable blocks, macro posting, and machine behavior edits that Productivity+ requires for similar functionality Because of the simplified nature of the CIMCO product, it cannot do the higher end stuff Productivity+ can, like create constructed features and advanced logic to branch off of. The top end power and flexibility in Productivity+ is to be able to easily build a process and logic tree programmatically, and there's nothing else that replicates that. The targeted use case you want probing for is going to tell you which of these products is a better fit.
  2. I've done this exact thing by generating slices along the centerline spline of the airfoil shape and then transforming the slice geometry to a flat plane representing the airfoil chord line of 2D profiles with relative LE offset to the centerline. The easy thing to start with is the defined section views of the airfoil off of the blueprint, which give you all your critical slice points. Die adjustments for twist and springback can then be dialed in at the sliced sections as planar angle adjustments, and the die surface re-swept through the adjusted wireframe. There are software packages that can probably do it faster, but I never used any specialized add-ins for this type of work, as the application differs from typical sheet metal spring calculations and there wasn't much out there claiming to be able to do this at the time.
  3. Chally72

    Multi-axis roughing

    Multiaxis Roughing was renamed as Pocketing and had two additional strategies added- wall finishing and floor finishing. Other than these changes, it is still "Roughing" as well. If you'd like, PM me or email me with the file and I can help troubleshoot.
  4. Chally72

    Multi-axis roughing

    There were some issues with inconsistent linking and helix generation in 2019 that can cause what you're talking about- I've experienced it myself. It has been greatly improved in 2020/2021. One of the triggers is if you're trying to hit multiple pockets/multiple floor areas with a single op. Try instead creating one op per pocketed area if that's the case.
  5. Chally72


    Correct, which is a good example of why the default Collision control strategy is Trim and Relink, to flute. This prevents these kinds of gouges which are most common for users when they try to drive a large tool into a small corner. I used a Retract along Surface Normal in that example to get it to lift away, but we have that impossible area to reach at the back point of the undercut no matter what strategy combo we use.
  6. Chally72


    Right, you'd need a tiny shank size vs that cutter size to make it viable. I set the clearance plane in Linking to be along user defined line, and just used that approximate wireframe line to get the retract in that direction. Make sure to turn your incremental lifts down if you want to use a method like this!
  7. Chally72


    You can get at most of this with your slotting tool and a nice parallel, but I think that the pink fillet surface highlighted in my example file attached is going to be physically impossible to finish machine with this tool. You have to tilt off to clear the walls and reach the back of the undercut, but that'll put the tool through the floor area. So, we need different flute geometry, different shank geometry, or a second op to come in with a ball tool at an angle and clean up that pink surface. The latter wouldn't be too bad- just do the attached example parallel, add some tilt off, but only go down to the pink surface and then take care of the rest with a ball, if you can manage the tilt. TOUGH-ONE_DGG.mcam
  8. Chally72

    2021 Curve 5 Axis Tool Path

    Just to clarify- this is a simulation-only issue and does not affect posted code. Backplot should be showing correct motion in all scenarios.
  9. Chally72

    2021 Curve 5 Axis Tool Path

    The move-to-origin issue in simulation when the op is complete is a known issue and is either fixed in 2021 Update 1/Update 2 (I forget which, shooting off the cuff right now). I'm guessing this path is locked to 4 axis in TAC. There are some toolpath transform issues in Verify/Simulation in 2020/2021 that occur when picking that "4-axis" dropdown from the TAC page in multiaxis toolpaths. Your reseller should be able to give you some more specific information here on exactly what's going on. An interim solution (which I know may very well not work for your file here) to specifically solve this simulation issue is to set Tool Axis Control to 5 axis, but then tweak the method of control such that it is still 4 axis motion. (IE, To chain with the chain as the centerline of the part, etc.... Again, the trigger here is choosing 4 axis in the TAC dropdown. I'm not sure of the status of those issues, and asking your reseller for updates/resolution is the best way to keep continued attention on them. I think I've seen this file or a near-identical file a few times already this year and I know it has all the triggers to hit these obscure 4 axis issues, including toolpath transform/plane issues.
  10. Hey all, If you haven't seen, there are weekly webinars being presented by AE's and Product Owners at CNC Software on 15-30 minute dives into different areas of the software. They're usually every Wednesday at 11am, and there are live Q&A sessions at the end of each where you have the chance to ply us with questions. The recordings also get posted to YouTube. Of particular interest in the recordings, judging by the number of created topics about it here, is probably the one on tolerancing, 3D surfacing, and smoothing, which is an all-encompassing window into what all the tolerancing bells and whistles actually affect. There's already a few Multiaxis-specific ones as well, with more to come from Aaron and others in the next few months. Link to sign up for Live Webinars: Link to playlist of recordings:
  11. Chally72

    slow moving

    I assume these open times are with Mastercam already started, and not double-clicking on a file and starting a new instance of Mastercam. 1:00 for a 129mb file might be a realistic number for 10 year old hardware. One good way to get more data points to compare against is to take a look at this Benchmark thread, run the test, and browse through other results.
  12. Chally72

    Multiaxis Drill

    Depending on the starting post, 4 axis posts may need to be updated to support the full capabilities of Multiaxis Drilling. This potential problem scenario existed before the introduction of the new unified drilling toolpath, but is perhaps more prevalent because it's so easy now to change drill ops from toolplane drilling to multiaxis drilling just by adding to the selection and flipping a switch in the tool axis control page. Things that 4-axis posts may not be set up for, but need to support, when posting a multiaxis drill operation set to 4-axis: Rotary angles Mapping the planes to get the correct values into X, Y, Z Breaking the drill cycle at angle changes, rotating to the new face, and restarting the drill cycle
  13. I've used the photogrammetry systems, freeware and otherwise. They're not anywhere near precise enough to meet your stated needs and typically have a lot of 'dirty' data that requires extensive time post-'scan' to clean up. Have you looked at Verisurf and Master3Dgage hardware? Did you evaluate what your actual budget for any such system would be if you put the cost savings from reduction in reverse engineering time into such a system? What range are you looking in? That was the heart of Crazy Millman's comment. We have a Master3DGage system in our Manufacturing lab and use it quite often for reverse engineering, both with hard probe and with laser scanner head attachment. The part geometry determines scanning method, and the hard probe is quite quick for prismatic parts. Even with laser scanning, you can go from million point mesh to healed surfaces to path against quite quickly, all within Mastercam.
  14. How often do you have to do this? Budgeting $500-$1000 per casting for an outside company to scan and produce a usable mesh is a good intermediate step. Otherwise, as Crazy Millman says, you're looking at a minimum of $30k to get the hardware to do the volume and and accuracy you're asking. I've gone the 3rd party route many times with blue light/laser scanning, and it's only getting cheaper/more prevalent.
  15. Chally72

    slow moving

    Hoo boy, that's old. I have a 2600K in an old engineering station and I definitely struggle with keeping drivers/software in line. As to the file open times, a quick test- Bring one of your larger files local- throw it on your desktop, and open it from there. Then open it from the server location. Time both. Are there massive differences in open time? If so, it's time to talk to your IT department about how to improve retrieval time from the server.

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