-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Store
eMastercam Wiki
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by [email protected]
-
Wow I really can't believe how many people tried to help me remember this. Unfortunately none of this sounds at all like what I recall I am going to Facebook message my old boss who explained the thing to me years ago I haven't talked to him in ages I will post back here with the response if I receive one. Thank you all very much for your efforts though -
These jobs were all ITAR as well, but the stupid acronym I'm looking for may have not been used many other places I recall my boss telling me what the letters stood for and he just said if we end up late on this job the military would be allowed to stop all other work until we finished their order. For all I know it could have been some xxxx he made up but I don't think so since I recall him explaining it in enough detail to tell me what every letter meant but it's been at least 8 years since that happened. sorry to send you all on a wild goose chase.
-
I found this article on Modern Machine shop I really thought it was about to say the acronym I am looking for. The closest they got was ManTech, but like I said think it was a 3 or 4 letter deal. https://www.mmsonline.com/articles/how-to-become-a-defense-industry-machined-parts-supplier last I heard this term was back in 2016 and it was a shop in Tucson so the fact they were talking about becoming a defense machine shop and mentioned phoenix...it got my hopes up. This is just one of those things that bug the hell out of you when really there is little need or importance to remember. Just one of my friends I worked with over there recalls the same thing but neither of us can remember the term/acronym.
-
It was DOD type work, sorry DPAS doesn't ring a bell I can only think that it started with M, Appreciate you both trying though
-
I am trying to remember what acronym was used at a shop I worked at years ago when when we would do certain high priority government or military jobs they would have like a 3 or 4 letter acronym on the travelers I want to say it started with M perhaps? Sorry I know this one isn't very Mastercam related but it's the only place I figured I would get the correct answer. This would be the types of jobs that require DFARS material and what not and If necessary people always said they could demand you stop all other work in the shop and solely work on their jobs...
-
not sure if I should ask this here or make a new post but my last job had these levels named TempSafeZoneSurface that I didn't name or create and I am not sure why or how they were created?
-
Gcode I just noticed that my sphere offset file keeps updating because the time stamp on the file is changing but i am only regenerating dirty stock models....This leads me to think it may not be generated by vericut?
-
Associative origin and Associative orientation
[email protected] replied to [email protected]'s topic in Industrial Forum
I unchecked both associative boxes in the plane manager for both planes used on the toolpath and it stopped making my other operations dirty. I'm still a bit lost as to why simply selecting different planes inside a toolpath made last causes past operations to get dirty. but unchecking associative fixed the issue -
Associate the plane with its creation geometry. It says the same thing for both when I hover over these check boxes in the Plane Manager. What's the difference between these two? When do you need to have them checked and for what? I noticed when I was making a new toolpath and simply selecting a different plane on the planes page (the one that has your 3 selections of WCS, tool plane, and construction plane). simply changing my WCS selection caused a ton of my op1 one stuff to get dirty and some things in my op2 as well. which is odd because I'm not even changing anything about the plane just trying to select a the correct one for my WCS on the new operation. do these check boxes have something to do with this occuring?
-
Thanks I will try the solutions you have presented me with. I had just realized I needed an updated .stl for the back side optirest path as well which might get rid of the issue I am having. I do agree ajmer .01 tolerance is probably too big as well.
-
allow 360 degree arcs is checked and arc break options set to dont break arcs
-
I don't think have access to my control definition where I work now. I will try to see and I will let you guys know if the HAAS graphics hangs up on this as well....Do you think there is any chance simply regenerating could end up with a different result? i am guessing it would do the exact same thing unless i change something but i don't know what i should change
-
this is my arc filter settings for this path also
-
So if it runs through my graphics without error, it should be safe to assume it will run okay I take it. What's sort of odd about this is that I am making a symmetrical part and this threw no alarms or warnings on the front half of the part but it does on the back side when all I did was copy and paste and reselect surfaces. perhaps i should see if translate mirror works on this path. its a dynamic optirest btw.
-
Hi all, this warning I received from Vericut, it reminds me of an alarm I had seen from the Haas controller before. something that said "radius too large" in the alarm perhaps and when looking at the line that causes the warning the radius is a lot bigger than any of the other i or j values around it... Any insights? when my machine finishes running I am going to see if it causes any alarms in graphics. Warning for line 439574 X1.9426 Y-4.339 I-13.3641 J-.0059 Warning: Arc start and end points may produce undesirable motion on Fanuc controls at line: 439574 G03 X1.8508 Y-4.1938 I.0132 J-.0401 F600. G01 X1.7975 Y-4.4663 X1.7903 Y-4.503 Z1.7947 F15. X1.7968 Y-4.5348 Z1.7712 G03 X1.8952 Y-4.5329 I.0484 J.0382 X1.9425 Y-4.3521 I-.2073 J.151 X1.9426 Y-4.339 I-13.3641 J-.0059 (line:439574) X1.9386 Y-4.2169 I-.4958 J.045 G01 X1.9338 Y-4.2045 Z1.7806 X1.9016 Y-4.1838 Z1.8087 X1.8842 Y-4.1857 Z1.8212
-
Things that get your operations dirty
[email protected] replied to [email protected]'s topic in Industrial Forum
Cool, good idea hitting the save button almost never a bad idea. I have only used toolpath edit once before to eliminate a line it cut into the pattern when it went to do a finish pass. The pocket was on a retirement award and they wanted a very clean looking toolpath pattern. but i recall it being locked after toolpath edit was complete like if you move certain cuts you can no longer access parameters if i recall correctly? -
Things that get your operations dirty
[email protected] replied to [email protected]'s topic in Industrial Forum
Do speed and feed changes cause regeneration to occur? I can't recall off hand and want to make one to a drill i left too fast but don't want to regen the two following stock models they process some optirests that take my system like 2 hours to complete. -
Things that get your operations dirty
[email protected] replied to [email protected]'s topic in Industrial Forum
I agree it is annoying but to me it seems that those types of changes don't seem to take as long to regenerate. -
Things that get your operations dirty
[email protected] replied to [email protected]'s topic in Industrial Forum
Millman, do you mean doing the convert to mesh and saving it like that to a level? On a somewhat related note I recently had taken the time to make all of the of my stock models in a program generate from the actual toolpaths. Before I saved them all as .stl from verify and then created a stock model in the toolpath manager and told it to use the according .stl at that point. but then when doing some optirest paths I noticed it was machining some vertical walls where there really wasn't any excess stock. I figured it was due to the resolution of the .stl files or possibly floating tiny triangles I wasn't sure, but I attached every stock model to all the according operations spent a Saturday setting up tools and relieving shoulders and let the thing just process. when redoing the same exact optirest it finally ignored the vertical walls using the toolpath generated stock models.....btw i did not have mill vertical walls box checked during either. -
I wish changing a tools description didn't require my toolpath to regenerate. I wish changing program numbers didn't require it, but I can see why this one might be more necessary. Also I notice sometimes I seem to be editing toolpath that comes way later in the program and a stock model all the sudden gets dirty even though I was not editing anything to do with those previous ops... anyway just thought i would talk about these and see if perhaps there are some work arounds or if someone knows what i could be doing to cause the stock models to get dirty.
-
Thanks, It shows up sometimes much later than my other vericut files and yes I am usually checking that box for eliminating inconsistencies that cleans up those errant triangles.
-
Sometimes after I save an .stl I get a text document showing up in my work folder that is titled "Sphere offset" there is no text inside the file. At least I am pretty sure it is related to saving the .stl there is a small chance it could be vericut related but it doesn't show up the same time as all the other vericut files that end up in my work folder. Does anyone know what this file is, why it is and where it comes from?
-
Get Verify to stop when shank hits material
[email protected] replied to medaq's topic in Industrial Forum
always compare love seeing my part get more green. I usually set tolerance to .005 -
Get Verify to stop when shank hits material
[email protected] replied to medaq's topic in Industrial Forum
I am having a similar issue, I am on 2023 and the collision checking menu is no longer under options it is just a drop down arrow you click on the top bar underneath a collision checking button. But my tools shank is either cutting material if I have it set to remove material or just not detecting hitting the stock at all if I turn material removal off. I have all the boxes check for collision checking. Could it be caused by the tolerance for collision being larger than the actual collision? should i make the tolerance tighter?
