Printable View
Anyone have any good tips for improving the Run Time Estimation in NCPlot?
I can get wildly inaccurate estimations depending on what sort of g-code it is. For example if the file is merely cutting out objects of reasonable size the estimation isn't too far off, but if it is milling something complicated with lots of short moves (such as engraving something.) The actual run time may be 2-3 times what the estimation is.
have you set your rapid speeds in ncplot ?
I find it gives me a good ballpark estimate on my programs which run anywhere from a half hour to 1.5 hrs . the problem is that it can't take into account for tool changes , accel/decel etc because this varies from machine to machine , otherwise I find it pretty handy for getting an initial cost for machining
Yes I have set the rapid speeds.
I know that the problem is primarily acceleration related. but is there any way to compensate for it?
Or maybe a suggestion for a better program to use for calculating the run time estimates?
The estimates are based on the numbers in the program (distance , feeds and rapids ) , no different from how the cad/cam will calculate the run time . Your not going to find anything other than the control to give you a 100% run time
I'm not expecting 100% perfect estimations, but when some estimates are within 90-110% of the real run time (which is acceptable), and others are less than 50% of the real run time, it is bordering on useless.
hy :) if estimation is, for example, 33% of real time, then reduce feed to / 3 / 2 ( for example, if initial feed was 0.6, change to 0.1 )Quote:
For example if the file is merely cutting out objects of reasonable size the estimation isn't too far off, but if it is milling something complicated with lots of short moves (such as engraving something.)
I'm not expecting 100% perfect estimations, but when some estimates are within 90-110% of the real run time (which is acceptable), and others are less than 50% of the real run time, it is bordering on useless
with such lower feed values, if the new estimation is more accurate ( like it changed from 33% to 70% ), it means that the machine can not reach initial desired feed
it's annoying, but estimation accuracy decreases for high feed curvy toolpaths / kindly :)
I have used facilities in two other programs that were intended for estimating runtimes.Both were inaccurate,one took no account of the acceleration and deceleration times for each move and assumed instantaneous transition and the other-in the controller-ignored the toolchange times and with a 3 metre long machine,the time from end of a cut needed to travel to the correct location before changing tools and moving to the next location didn't feature in the calculation.After a few jobs it was possible to guess how much to factor in but I wouldn't want to use either to quote for a job.