Proper way to set WCS

[AMTMFG]

Hi all...

 

I am trying to get my system up and running with X8. ( Previous version X6 )

While developing and testing some post processors, I am seeing some differences in the way X8 is interacting with the WCS & T/C Planes. These differences are preventing the out put of program offsets other than G54 without a work around.

 

Is there a new proceedure for setting and working with the WCS & T/C Planes?

 

Here is the proceedure I have been using in the past.

( This may vary well be an improper proceedure, but has been working for years!!! )

1) Create geometry, solids, etc. for tool driving tool paths.

2) Create an unique WCS for each Work Offset / Part, through the WCS Plane Manager.

3) Assign zero location for each Work offset / Part through the WCS Plane Manager.

4) Set the WCS,T, & C Planes equal to the named plane where the tool path will be generated from.

5) Create tool path

6) Verify that the WCS T&C Planes are assigned properly in the operations manager.

This procedure is outputing a program where only G54 is beling called, even if other operations are set to use different WCS, T&C Planes.

 

The work around I have found to get the output of offsets higher than G54 is as follows

Steps 1-5 are the same as above.

6) In the operations manager set the WCS = Top  //  Tool Plane = "Named Plane"  //  Comp / Construction Plane = "Named Plane"

 

This change in step (6) will output offsets higher than 54

 

I have attached a word document showing the difference in program output.

 

Any and all comments, Help, & Advise is greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Bradley

G54-G55.doc

[Tinyfxds]

If I need to setup my WCS View to output a different work offset, than I just change the number in the "Work Offset #" box in the Plane Manager.  It defaults to -1 which is universally a G54 offset.  For our machines 0 is G54, 1 is G55...etc.  I create separate views for my setups and leave the  WCS named views as is.  Usually my "Setup One" view is always G54 so I either leave the number in the "Work Offset #" box at -1 or change it to 0.  This posts out a G54 for that view.  When I create my "Setup Two" view I will change the "Work Offset #" box to 1, which is set to post out a G55.  I believe Mastercam uses these numbers so that different posts will recognize which work offset to post out.  I think Heidenhain controls don't use the traditional "G54" work offset so it wouldn't recognize a G54 and that's why Mastercam uses a generic work offset numbering system.

[#Rekd™]

Great video here by JP on this topic!

 

[CJep]

The default -1 tells the post processor to select the next available work offset.
To force a work offset input a value as stated by Tinyfxds. 0=G54 - 5=G59, 6 and up will result in using the auxiliary work offsets.
This is not a work around it's been like that going back prior to V7.

Yes the origins for the McamX8 default planes T/F/R etc have been locked, if you want to change the origin for Mcam's Top plane make a copy of it then select your new origin.

[Jayson Kramer]

JP, did you actually make this video. it gives allot of good info for customers.

[Guest]

JP, did you actually make this video. it gives allot of good info for customers.

 

Yes I did Jay

[CJep]

It's always interesting to see how other folks do things in the software. I do something similar to what you did JP except I don't create multiple WCSs. I create just the toolplanes with dynamic planes and use them to move around the part. I have only one WCS. Also if I'm not changing the machine the part is being run in I will use one machine group. I add toolpath groups to the machine group based on the operation. By using the toolpath groups when facing the back side of the part you could associate to the stock.

When working around the part using toolplanes and posting code with a 4axis machine you will get rotation. However by loading a 3axis machine or turning off the rotary in the axis combinations, there will be no rotary output or axis rotation errors.

[Newbeeee™]

Very nice vid John.

I've never used the dynamic WCS before....

[Sticky]

I wish Dynamic WCS was associative. SO MUCH.

[Thee Awbade™]

Yes I did Jay

Learned a few things from that video, thanks for makin' it J!

 

 

However, in the Aerospace Industry, it's HIGHLY frowned upon to move actual parts. So for me, no matter the orientation of the part I cannot move it, or change it's location in space in any way whatsoever. Is this not a standard practice in most fields? I notice you transforming/moving the part quite often (I'm going to use some of these tricks for simply moving my toolpath geometry however.)

[Guest]

I have NEVER understood the aversion for some companies to moving parts..it's location within the CAM has absolutely ZERO to do with anything upstream.....

 

If someone told me I couldn't move a part I'd tell them they were effin' crazy

 

and those who know me, know I would

 

 

But, you can very easily move the origin to your part and work around it

[Thee Awbade™]

I have NEVER understood the aversion for some companies to moving parts..it's location within the CAM has absolutely ZERO to do with anything upstream.....

 

If someone told me I couldn't move a part I'd tell them they were effin' crazy

 

and those who know me, know I would

 

 

But, you can very easily move the origin to your part and work around it

 

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with compatibility between contacts. So if I'm working on something and wanted to send off my changes for someone to compare to, the two parts would be in the exact same spot. (Also, for aerospace we call it "Airplane Co-Ordinates" Because if you were to merge all the files for a specific project, they fit exactly where they are on the plane. Actually looks pretty cool when I merge all my files into one mega-file and I have a huge airplane!)

[Guest]

on the surface it sounds nice, I just don't think that's practically, the restriction is necessary

 

 

But that's me, I've been doing this a LOONG time and seen reasons for everything.

 

If my contract or PO stated it, I'd live with it...Doesn't mean I wouldn't be shaking my head though

[Thee Awbade™]

on the surface it sounds nice, I just don't think that's practically, the restriction is necessary

 

 

But that's me, I've been doing this a LOONG time and seen reasons for everything.

 

If my contract or PO stated it, I'd live with it...Doesn't mean I wouldn't be shaking my head though

 

Yeah, I guess I'm just used to it since I've always been doing it (Outside of my first month on the job or so.) So it's not as big of a deal for me. It sure looks nice not having to work around that though =P

[Zoober]

I'm with JP here.

In all of my 30 ish years in aerospace (granted longer than cam), I've never had anybody tell me that I couldn't move a part from the originating part space.

It's not part of Boeing's D6-51991 (trust me, I've helped more than a couple companies meet the requirements), and none "big boys" we did work for dis-allowed it or mentioned it in a contract or a PO. I've done parts for shuttles, ground, air, space, you name it.  From DC10 & L1011's to the F35 CTOL and STOVL's.

Validating models once out of it's native cad environment is one thing, but once a model  translation is validated, it doesn't matter if zero is the pilots eye, or on the moon in world coordinates. As long as surfaces validate to the authority dataset, you're good to go. You can even create your own coordinate structure for data point cloud validations.

I'm not saying you aren't under that constraint, but I've never been told not to move a part in space. Ever.

[Thee Awbade™]

Interesting. I've only worked in 2 places so my experience is much much more limited.

 

I was told at my first job by a boeing engineer that it was like a sacriligious sin to move models out of airplane coords, and they act pretty much the same way in my current shop. I wonder what the difference in attitude is coming from

[?Mark]

I'm with JP and Zoober. I move it to where I want it. My wcs is always at some center of rotation for hmc or 4-5 axis work or some edge for 2-3 axis work

[Thee Awbade™]

Mark, do you work at PPG Aerospace? I think I've done some work for you

[Newbeeee™]

+ another with JP.

We'll orientate the part to where we want it for the first/initial TOP view, then set planes all around for rotary (4th ax) work.

I've never seen the problem.

However from a CAD jockey standpoint, I may understand it???

 

Perhaps it's down to CATIA thinking (integrated CAD/CAM) - cad jockey models the part - load to CATIA cam and if there is a problem, it can be squirted back and forth with no orientation issues?

 

When I was in the drawing office back in the day, I fought like heck to have more integration with our internal machine shop.

Now I'm bit making, I fight like heck to have autonomous from CAD jockeys

[sir Camalot]

I am also with JP and Zoober on this. I think not moving the part had to do with the validation of the part as the part has to be inspected based on aircraft coordinates versus machine coordinates. Any good Inspection software should take of this though and it should be a fairly easy process to get the "frame" to match aircraft coordinates once it is in machine coordinates. Another reason this could have been started was revision changes. Constantly changing from aircraft to machine coordinates can be a bit tedious at times. So just as a precaution, I'll set three points, all different colors, on a part in unique places and save those points on 2 levels, one level with just the 3 points and then to the level that the part is on. The 3 points with the part will get moved to where ever the part goes to. I will then leave the other three points alone and never move them. That way I can always get back to the aircraft coordinates if I need to.

[neurosis]

I have NEVER understood the aversion for some companies to moving parts..it's location within the CAM has absolutely ZERO to do with anything upstream.....

 

If someone told me I couldn't move a part I'd tell them they were effin' crazy

 

and those who know me, know I would

 

 

But, you can very easily move the origin to your part and work around it

 

 

When I first started working at this company we did a "ton" of assembly work. Some times the assemblies would have 50 parts and  we had to figure out how to attach the parts to each other and look for problems/interference along the way.  It was way easier to leave the parts in place and work around the part location rather than trying to move parts around to use the system wcs. That way if we had to make any changes to tooling holes we could just move them while easily making sure they werent interfering with mating parts, regen, and post.  Moving the parts around made a ton of extra work.

 

Same went for the Rotational Molds we used to work on. Some of those things were difficult to align because nothing was straight. Making a change and having to move them around would have been a pain in the butt. Much easier to just leave them in place.

 

I've adopted that way of thinking and have run with it.

 

I do move parts around when it makes sense to.

[Thee Rickster ™]

I have NEVER understood the aversion for some companies to moving parts..it's location within the CAM has absolutely ZERO to do with anything upstream.....

 

If someone told me I couldn't move a part I'd tell them they were effin' crazy

 

and those who know me, know I would

 

 

But, you can very easily move the origin to your part and work around it

 

Interesting. never been told I couldn't move a part, but have no need too.

 

But on the other hand, why move the part or components, when you can create as many new WCS origins as

needed to make a part or parts or molds?

 

I tried moving mold components so that each piece was in Top WCS origin.

made it a nightmare when an Engineering change came in and you had to move each component

into place every time...

[Guest]

Perhaps I am a relic of days of future past......

 

In older versions, working on ANYTHING multi-axis your sanity depended on being on the origin......even now I leave nothing to chance, if I have a process that works, I don't mess with it.

 

[K2csq7]

I am tying to get CNC to implement a true WCS. 

Center of the earth is everyone's orgin. 

[neurosis]

@JP

Coming from Cimatron, I have been doing this since the early 90's. It may just be a product of the system you learned on rather than being a relic. 

 

On early Mastercam X versions I made the mistake of programming entire assemblies in Mastercam the same as I had been doing in Cimatron. I would get about 5 parts deep in to the assembly and Mastercam would start crashing just from trying to open an operation.   It almost caused me to change my thinking and process.