Right. I got some quotes for training from Ron, and a few other people, so myself, and the other programmers could be more efficient, and make better parts, faster, and I was told we don't have time for a week of training.

oh ok, that makes sense.

A problem I have, is in my shop, it's go go go, I end up resorting to methods that may not be the best way, but a way that works well enough. Seems like there's never time to try to improve it, or maybe just not the right people around to learn from.

So you basically create a circle, instead of just using the radius, and ramp/spiral down at like, 15-20deg?

I tried this after reading your comment, as I'm in this same situation quite a bit. When I use ramp on an open contour, it wants to climb AND conventional mill. Is there a way to avoid that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the method.

My question was more regarding the actual "angle" of the tool deflection. From my experience, I find that if I take a heavy enough chip, I get deflection, and a tapered wall. Using radius comp will just move the position of the taper. Sometimes it seems like a spring pass is the only way to get rid of that taper, which can sometimes result in a bad finish. So asking questions isn't allowed anymore? In my opinion, that mindset, is part of why this is becoming a lost art.

I don't think I've ever created an STL/Mesh through verify. I always convert from a stock model. But that brings up a question I've wondered. What do you generally set the initial stock shape, and toolpath tolerance at? I usually put it at .001. No idea if that's too high or too low.

What could have caused that? Convert stock to mesh is what I originally did to create it in the first place.

Looks like something was wrong with the stock model. Maybe it was somehow hollow, or not water tight. I recreated the stock model based on a solid, rather than the previously created mesh, and everything looks good.

Ah, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Everything looks good (aside from wasted air cuts) with detect undercut stock turned off. Then when I turn it on, it's like it has no idea where the stock is.

I'm not sure I follow. It alerts you by slamming the tool through the part? Or are you getting different results when you run it?

Can anyone tell me what I'm missing here? When I choose "detect undercut stock" the whole thing goes haywire. I know the holder, and speeds and feeds aren't right. Ignore that. Operation 20 is the toolpath in question. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HGUEcak81AX10rDAywKfnzjKNCpoDuKg/view?usp=drive_link

From looking at the generated stock model, it appears to have eliminated those cuts. I might not use that approach on something like inconel, or carpenter, but on aluminum, I'm not worried about the little bit of extra material.

I noticed I always have lots of wasted cuts in optirough, particularly on top corners. I'm guessing because technically, there is more than whatever stock you left, and it goes around the corner to trim that off. It looks like, by lying and saying my tool has a sharp corner, I can eliminate these extra passes. This particular part is 6061. I understand that it'll leave extra material, and my be an issue on tougher materials. But, as long as I account for that, it shouldn't cause me any problems, should it? Or is there a better way?

I was going to ask this question. I hate that button, and always forget to turn it off. There's no way to keep it off by default?

Hey Ron, I was checking out your file, and had a couple questions. When you machined the floors in the pockets, you used a Horizontal toolpath. Any particular reason you use that, versus area mill, or pocket? Just different ways to skin the cat? Or is horizontal better in some way? Also, when stepping down the pocket like you are, in the swarf and Surface Contour toolpaths, I almost always end up with steps, or ridges on the walls. What's your trick to eliminate that?? Oops....I also just noticed the date on that post

Doesn't seem to have changed much. I stripped the file down and left 5 drilling operations so I could upload it. It looks like it's still unsure which axis it's rotating about. A few issues with the code - the machine needs B90. Not B-90. There's no reason for the second B rotation to B-270. That's why I think it's rotating about the wrong axis. X values should also be X-.614 for all 5 holes, but 2 of them are at x.614. eMastercam wouldn't let me upload the file. Here's a GDrive link. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ocXBTjif2RYeo_MT88NYE0TJn62EbNWz/view?usp=sharing

Thank you. I'll give it a try.

Do you know HOW to do it in the machine def? I'm not too familiar with that side of things. I just use the MD/CD/PST that i'm given usually. Yes. I've also tried the Haas VF_TR 5X post

I'm programming a part for a VF-4 with a Nikken, 5X indexer. The primary axis rotates about the Y axis. The generic haas post I have, rotates about the X axis. Is there an easy way to rotate this? I'm only doing one part for this machine, so it's not worth it for me to buy a post or anything like that, If I can get around it.

I've had this problem, and I believe it was related to tolerance (which I see you already have quite low) and maybe clearance.

I started having wrist pain from a standard mouse, and the Elecom changed my thoughts on trackballs. Now I switch back and forth every 3-6 months just to prolong the carpal tunnel https://www.amazon.com/ELECOM-M-XPT1MRXBK-Trackball-Bluetooth-High-Performance/dp/B07DMF2DNW?ref_=ast_sto_dp

Might have been tough because you've been looking at compressors instead of indexable tooling. (juuuust kidding) We usually keep a little drawer organizer with about 10-20 of each of the screws for any indexable Ingersoll tooling we have. From what I'm told, those screws actually bend a tiny bit, as part of the design, which is what keeps the insert tucked in the pocket. On most of our High Feed Mills we replace them at routine intervals, otherwise we end up losing screw heads, and inserts during cuts.

In the integrated tool manager, you can right click > edit tool assembly, and build an assembly with multiple holders.

Tomorrow I'll try to recreate it on a different model that I can share. As far as detecting flats, I have another part, where I used same stepup/down and it didn't seem to pay any attention to the flats rule. There was a large radius on the part that is still wanted to treat as though there were .050" stepups. Parameters set to .300" stepdown, .300" stepup.