[rhichr23]

Hello all,

I've been teaching myself mastercam x2 over the last 6 months with a company I recently was hired for. (They had the x2 software in the box unopened until they hired me......to design solid models in SolidWorks. I had told them that I may be able to use the mastercam software they just had sitting around to machine some parts....lol)
I've been pretty successful at fumbling through some 5axis machining from a few guides on the net, and just from toying around. But one problem has been haunting me for the longest time.

This picture shows a 5 axis swarf (bottom lines) around the perimeter with a .500" Dia tool. The top tool path is a raster pass using a .500" ball end mill to machine the top surface, and the fillet on the edge.



If you look at the zoomed in picture on the right, this is where my problem lies....
At first I thought "If the two surfaces are tangent, shouldn't the tool paths line up, if both use a .500" tool?" Then I let it go as just a poor graphical representation of the tool path. This was until I machined it out. The tool path set, did exactly what was pictured, and didn't make the two adjacent surfaces tangent to each other. The top round "cut" into the near vertical face, and left a gouge the whole way around my perimeter.

To date, I have been successful at fudging it, by increasing the ball nose's diameter, until the two paths line up on my screen, and still using a .500" tool. I know this isn't the correct way to do this, so If anyone can shed a little light on the subject I would appreciate the help.

Thanks,
Chris

[bostosh]

Output the path to geometry,
then take a point and construct a solid model of the programmed cutter.
Same for the 5axis cut, build a cylinder.
Compare/analyze distances to source model.

I have had to do something like this to prove or disprove calculation accuracies.

Or send me a X3 file of the problem
WYSIWY(Got)
If you see a gouge in Verify it most likely is.

[Superman]

It seems the toolpath is rolling over all surfaces and is not bringing the lower walls into consideration. Typically the ballnose OD should not need to go past the lower edge of the fillet, unless a lead in/out, or direction is used

Are you also using "depths" (min/max) absolute/incremental etc ?

suggestion
- raster path, use the lower walls as "check surfaces" and leave .0005" more than the drive surface allowance

or

- raster only the top srface
- swarf the walls
- flowline the fillets

[rhichr23]

bostosh -
I only can save my file in my x2 format. I have a "personal" copy of x3 that I have tried this in, and I believe comes out no problem with a simple regenerate of the tool path. But I can't use the x3 copy at work.

Every part I create that has an external fillet on it, it does this to btw, so it isn't this part specifically that does it.

Superman-
I am not using depths when I create the raster. In fact, depths does absolutely nothing on this raster. I have tried to use the check surface around the perimeter (the surfaces the swarf is driven by), but then it omits part of the raster for no apparent reason on the topside...

Flowline on the fillets only comes up with the same thing


This just may be an issue with x2, and it being pretty dated for surface tool paths. Are the new versions far superior than this?

Also, I'm using tip comp, and not center comp. Do I need to use center, and adjust tool length to go around rounds? Kinda running out of ideas for this one....