groove-MODEL-mcx.mcx-9

what do the control lines do?

I have a chamfer to do top and bottom of a groove - in image - I have rough highlighted in red. I could scan with the tool i use for the groove, but interested in using 5 axis toolpaths more than I do at the moment. I think I'll manage the top chamfer - using an endmill with 5 Axis swarf toolpath  (have done something similar before). The bottom one, can i scan it using a ballnose on a 5 axis path so ballnose is always approx perpendicular to chamfer plane - and will not hit other areas of the component. Maybe quite simple - but not overly familiar with 5 axis paths - anything to point me in right direction would be appreciated - thanks

Thanks for reply, no access to Mastercam until next week now -  without looking through the toolpath options I am not entirely sure what you mean by stock model ?. I used method described n thread - saving an stl file from stock produced by previous ops - then picking it as a CAD file  - I assume from replies there is another way  - anything to pint me in the right direction on other method would be welcome - I will give it a go next week - thanks

Thanks all- I used opti rough toolpath- using stl model, I didnt understand about making my stock from stl on a level, I did put it on a level anyway for reference. but saw no option to pick it from the level - only to select the file ( hope that makes sense). Anyway - it worked well 

using x9 - can i use opti rough with stl file saved from surface pocket toolpath - this toolpath is already a couple of hours into cut - so will have to go with it now. Liverpool is great - massively improved city   over last 10 years - where does it say where im from ?

I have just tried surface restmill - it wont generate a toolpath - comes up with error - ''cant extract at least one solid face''

so I cant use surface restmill with surface rough pocket?

I have roughed a steel billet (approx 30'' square) as per pic attached, I have used Surface Rough Pocket with a large Facemill. I now wish to continue with roughing using a smaller tool,

I know there is a method/ toolpath which takes into account previous ops - this will obviously save a lot of roughing time. I have never used this method or toolpath - although I know it can be used, could somebody point me in the right direction on how to do this  ( I will then research it more before using it ). There maybe another method of saving stock model and using that as stock for next toolpath ?. Any advice on method/ toolpaths would be welcome - thanks

1 hour ago, F10Brandon said:

Create>Surface>Offset... 

This is what I use when putting part clearance on sheet surfaces. Or like Pullo said, 

Maybe gear back on the caps lock too.

ha ha. thanks. caps is my OCD

Just now, pullo said:

really lazy style offset would be to machine with a stock to leave 0.048....

I WAS THINKING OF THAT AS A SOLUTION. WITH ME HAVING TO MAKE A MALE AND FEMALE PART I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE MODELS. AGAIN THANKS

23 minutes ago, pullo said:

You actually need a sheet first as an input for thicken. It's what id does , takes a sheet and makes a solid out of it with a thickness....

 

Gracjan

OK. I'M NOT USED TO DEALING WITH SHEET MODELS. ALTHOUGH I HAVE TRIED TO THICKEN WITH NO JOY. AS IT KEEPS TELLING ME THICKEN OPERATION FAILED

11 minutes ago, pullo said:

Solids thicken ?

WITH IT BEING A SHEET MODEL IT WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO THICKEN. I WILL HOWEVER TRY AND MAKE IT A SOLID MODEL AND THEN THICKEN. THANKS

I'VE ACTUALLY TRANSLATED THE PART, WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE SORTED IT. I'VE DONE A FEW CHECKS AND SIZE SEEMS TO BE CONSISTANT. FROM A MACHINISTS POINT OF VIEW I INITIALLY DIDN'T THINK THIS WOULD WORK!! THOUGHTS???

I'M LOOKING TO MODEL UP A PRESS TOOL. MALE & FEMALE PART WITH A 0.048'' GAP IN BETWEEN. I ONLY HAVE THE FEMALE MODEL IN A SHEET FORMAT BUT WISH TO UNIFORMLY MAKE THE MALE PART. WHICH IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS?

so when changing versions - how do i reset my preferences which are saved in config - is this just a no for x9- 2017  ?

Can I copy my config file from x9 and put it into 2017 ?

Thanks - I didnt know about chaining a point either - like the look of circle mill - very useful info- thanks

Never used Circle Mill before - once i'd found the setting to start on centre - that did it - thanks - does circle mill have any other advantages over contour ?

I am trying contour method suggested - ok in theory - but tool is 16MM dia, and smallest part of sphere is 17.3mm dia. so not much room to get tool in and out - at the moment tool would damage bore as it retracts , and even though the lead in is adequate at top at bottom of bore - once machining centre - it hits smaller part of sphere as it retracts - I need to either stop it retracting or keep it on centre as it retracts - any ideas ? see pic for op and some settings

no 3d comp on control - I will give the geometry off surfaces 2d contour method a go - still trying to workout if the theory is correct - but will give it a go

macro we use rotates around a circle centre in Y & Z (in 1 degree increments) allowing for rad of tip - then changes circle centre to X & Y and mills 360 degrees - changes back to circle centre in Y & Z iand repeats process - so theory is good - we just work to a go/nogo ball - not sure what an air gauge is? .

Not familiar with 3D Comp Chook - will investigate more - what do you mean by options for 3D comp ?

The screenshot shows a Spherical Bore - we machine various similar parts with difference size bores. These parts are programmed using Mastercam for everything apart from the bore, to do this we insert a pgm to finish bore, which is editable to hold exact size of the bore, we use a Heidenhahn pgm using variable q values ( similar to # values on Fanuc), we use a depo cutter (similar to Lollipop Cutter). This works well and is fully adjustable. Is there a way in Mastercam to machine a spherical bore, with some control over the size ( i.e. Cutter Comp ) . I know i could just repost and run with different stock allowance to adjust size - but this requires a programmer to be on hand when job is running - rather than an operator adjusting it at machine, I dont think there is a way - but thought i would ask 

if i use check - it quite often leaves some parts of surfaces unmachined - it doesnt using containment - i will look into blend - never really used it - thanks

Thanks - I did improve by lower cut tolerance & changing containment - its now a lot better - but still not right - a surface toolpath shouldn't dig into a drive surface - but this does?