I suspect that you are inputting the feed based on each revolution, rather than "per tooth per revolution ". 

Example: If you calculator shows .005" and you are running at 10K rpm, that translates to 50 inches per minute feedrate, however, the .005" should be per tooth. So if you have a 4 flute endmill, that translates to .020" per revolution, or, 200 inches per minute feedrate. 

Radial chip thinning is a whole other subject. You might be best to do a Google search on that to see a graphic and wrap your head around that. Basically it allows you to increase your feedrate significantly when cutting a small amount of material at the side of the tool.

Carmen

Your replies to my comments are certainly defensive.

You are attempting to use the toolpath incorrectly. It is not designed to be used the way you intend. Go back and re-read my comments. 

Face the part,no problem, who cares. That part makes sense and would be a typical approach to roughing this part. As BenK graciously suggested, use the depth limits to control where your follow-up toolpath cuts. 

Again, step-up is only valid where you have surfaces/solids that have topography that is between flat and vertical. By the looks of your model, you have vertical walls and flat floors. Step-up would have no value here as there is no material left behind at each profile pass. You need sloping surface/solid faces for step-up to have any use.

I think the part you are not understanding is: You are not using the correct toolpath to rough this part. Basically, if you complained that you are using a waterline toolpath and the stupid software doesn't pocket out all the material. I would tell you the same thing. Use the appropriate toolpaths correctly and you will get the correct results. In your example, you are pushing on a rope. It doesn't work that way.

Carmen

I hope those feedrates are at feet/meters per minute.

Carmen

You have a number of errors that will make this far more difficult than it needs to be. Your facing operations make no difference at all. Just do a dynamic roughing toolpath and choose a boundary that is the shape of the stock. You do not need to use "offset". Mastercam already knows to start from the outside. Another error I see in your settings is that your step-down is set to 1.2", but you also have step-up set at 1.2". This is totally useless based on your settings. Shut it off if all your surfaces are vertical. If your geometry is tapered, then set it to something reasonable that will give you some resolution. If you truly want to use a optirest roughing toolpath, it really doesn't need a boundary. Mastercam will calculate its own boundaries where it determines that stock still remains from a previous operation/s. If you truly want to only clean up a certain area, then that is where boundaries come into play. Don't blame the software for not giving you want you want. Your programming approach is incorrect. 

Carmen

KTS Tooling has a program that they offer through Seco for recycling carbide. 

http://www.ktstooling.com

Carmen

Try posting up a screen shot of your settings and I'm sure you will find some quick help.

Carmen

Hey guys,

I have a simple question that I could not find an answer to using the search. Has anyone installed Mastercam on a MacBook and had good results? I realize you would have to run a dual boot so that you have the windows OS running.

Thanks in advance.

Carmen

Follow the link. Sometimes you need slightly better than the eyeball method.

What link?

Carmen

The OP was asking about collet chucks.

Call your Mastercam dealer or give Inhouse Solutions a call. I am fairly certain nobody will help you with a post, and, it might actually be a condition of being on this forum.

Carmen

Sorry about your luck brother!

 

I absolutely detest Dándrea!

Can I ask why? We have been using them for roughly 12 years and never had a single problem.

Carmen

We use a lot of the D'andrea holders. They are balancable for our higher spindle rpm Makino's.

http://www.dandrea.com/EN/contents.asp?c=10

Carmen

I have both shrink and hydraulic and while they both work well I prefer hydraulic when clearances allow.  I feel that hydraulic has better damping characteristics and produce a better finish.  There have been a few instances where I pulled a chattering tool from a shrink fit holder and put it in a hydraulic holder and it cut butter smooth with the same parameters.  The shrink fit holders are so dang rigid they don't dampen the vibrations much.  For 5-axis where you have extended reaches and tight spots while indexing it is hard to beat shrink fit.  For smaller tools with 1/8" shanks we will use a Schunk hydraulic holder with a Haimer shrink extension.  At ~$600 each it is an expensive way to hold a tool but after all is said and done (Shunk holder, sleeve, Haimer extension) the run out is typically .0001" which is pretty hard to believe.  Both Schunk and Haimer make grade AAA stuff.

I would agree 100% with Bob's comments. Damping is a huge issue on long hangouts, and the hydraulic holders do a great job of keeping this in check. We use Haimer/Command for shrink fit, and Nikken/Lyndex for our collet chucks. Both are pricey but the quality and performance are top shelf.

Carmen

^{M19 is important, however, equally important is how the tool is positioned in the spindle. You need to know the correct position of the tool so you can program the proper vector for machining.}

^Carmen

Actually it's page 24 in the "What's new" file.

Carmen

Check your lead-in/lead-out values and that should fix the problem

Carmen

The i stand for eye-yai-yai when you look at the pricetag. GoetzInd is giving you some good advice. Our company has an F5  and V56, but totally different machines when it comes to price. We also have an S56 which was replaced by the F5 and two PS95 Makino's which are super fast, but not well suited for your application. The F5 would blow your mind compared to a Haas.

With Makino, if it has an i in the model number, you better call your banker to extend your line of credit.

Carmen

Did I miss something? I logged in the site, linked my account, and still can't download.

Carmen

I had this issue last week too. Our IT guy looked at it and found that we could only make the registry "stick" with one version or the other, but not both. As we are currently using X8, he set the registry and it is working fine now,

Carmen

Unigraphics to Mastercam is one of the worst conversions there is. You can get a direct translator as an add-on to your Mastercam licence, but the output that I have seen has not been great. It has to do with the proprietary way that UG "describes" its surfaces/solids. In the past, when our customers would give us UG files, we had to get them to convert them to STEP, and it was still difficult. To answer your question, yes, it is possible to program from a solid.

Carmen

We had our post modified so that the rotational angle resets once you pass 360 degrees. Simple fix by your reseller.

Carmen

Go to your configuration tab, then select the start-up tab, then select start-up product. It will currently be set to mill. Using the drop-down tab, select design. Restart Mastercam and you should be good to go.

Carmen

Brian,

I would be very interested to see what kind of results you get, or what you find works best. Our Makino's like lots of code too, but finding the perfect setting is a bit of a guessing game.

Carmen

We hold .0001" to .0002" without any problem with our lasers, but we use a Blum A2 laser system, but I am sure a Renishaw would be equal in performance. Small tools are our specialty. The easiest way to check your accuracy would be to touch the tool off the laser and then send the tool to a position 1.0" above the top of your part and then take guage blocks to measure the true gap. If the gap turns out to be 1.0", then it is your tool geometry or program that is incorrect.

Carmen

An MQL system won't work on a thru-spindle, so you are not missing anything. We use Accu-lube systems on most of our Makino's and a similar system on our Mikron's. A single nozzle works great. We use it primarily for hard-milling.

Carmen