[Magnum164]

Looks like I am still having problems with metric/imperial in my machine. Need to get some input from everyone. The other day I was machining some pockets and everything was well, but the rapid down into the material was very fast and hard. I let the machine run as the bit would have broke the first time if it was going to break. Later I realized that the force had actually flattened the center cutting tips and it showed when I machined the top surface.

Checking SC, it seemed everything was fine, till I went to the rapids feed menu. I realized it is not set as a percent of the work feed and not sure why it's not. Mine always defaults to 394 in all processes.

Just curious if anyone else has noticed this as being 394. I just entered 3 as a start and the rest of the parts cut fine with no harsh rapid plunging in the pocket.

I like SC, but i don't like having to check all of these menus. You would think if the rest are a percent of the work feed the rapids should default to a standard percent as well. I have a feeling the 394 is metric, converting it over would be about 15IPM which would have been a little reasonable but still to fast for my .125 EM.

[bevinp]

You may be able to set the default parameters by modifying the .xml files. Eric produced a training video last year showing how to make changes to certain default settings in those files. When I changed my files, I noticed one of those files also listed default speeds/feeds, can't remember which. Might be worth a look.
Bevin

[Eric_Tormach]

One of the most important issues discussed when I visited SprutCAM was that the values that they put as default, in many different areas are wrong. It took some explaining to get across to them that a default that is wrong might as well be 0, or blank, then at least we lessen the possibility of a destructive value such as you have. In order for me to effectively catalog and present these issues to SprutCAM it would be helpful, that when people come across these problems that they send me an explanation and let me know what build and rev they are running. This way I can make a bug report to SprutCAM.

[Eric_Tormach]

Also, as a side note, if the "Safe level" is set correctly then you should never rapid down into the material. You may want to also check your approach, and plunge feed rate. The "safe level" is the level in which the cutter will rapid to (it should be sufficiently above the work surface I usually use .05). After that safe level, the cutter will move at a feed rate (usually 50 percent of work feed). If instead of safe level a "safe distance" is used, you can find that the cutter may rapid into the material as "safe distance" is a incremental value.

[Magnum164]

One of the most important issues discussed when I visited SprutCAM was that the values that they put as default, in many different areas are wrong. It took some explaining to get across to them that a default that is wrong might as well be 0, or blank, then at least we lessen the possibility of a destructive value such as you have. In order for me to effectively catalog and present these issues to SprutCAM it would be helpful, that when people come across these problems that they send me an explanation and let me know what build and rev they are running. This way I can make a bug report to SprutCAM.

I generally try and make sure there is not something I am doing wrong before I officially submit something. I can send you some info later today.

[Magnum164]

Also, as a side note, if the "Safe level" is set correctly then you should never rapid down into the material. You may want to also check your approach, and plunge feed rate. The "safe level" is the level in which the cutter will rapid to (it should be sufficiently above the work surface I usually use .05). After that safe level, the cutter will move at a feed rate (usually 50 percent of work feed). If instead of safe level a "safe distance" is used, you can find that the cutter may rapid into the material as "safe distance" is a incremental value.

To me I see this as the problem. I always use a safe level of .1 (since all my parts are made from .25 plate) and since that is what the training videos show. Today I changed and used a safe distance of about .035 and it does feed harder as you mentioned.

If there is a difference in how the feed is determined by selecting these two options then the software should somehow alert the user. I would not think changing the distance the cutter starts would have an impact on how fast it feeds.

At least by setting the value to 4 I have not had anymore flattened end mills

[Eric_Tormach]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my points from the previous replies. The cutter will not "feed harder" ever. There are two setting to be aware of. One is "safe level" this should be set to a point above the part (normally a Z+ amount) some of my videos show .1 and some .05 depending apon the mood I am in when I make them. The safe level is the level that it is safe for the cutter to move at a rapid rate to the hight specified. After the cutter has reached this level a G1 with a feed rate value is used to feed the cutter into the part. The feed rate value for the initial cut down into the part will be the "approach feed" You must select the value you want either by designating a % of work feed or giving it a value of it's own. I am willing to bet at no time in your G code that there was a feed rate value of 394. Please post your G code for analysis. The other feed rate you must consider is plunge rate, and you must select a value in the same way you selected a value fro approach feed. In order to understand where these values occur in the G-code I recommended putting in strange values (.123-.567) then looking at the G-code so you know where these occur (see attached picture). I hope the picture clears up any issues. Remember it is always important to review the G code. I don't know of any CAM software that will warn a user that their programmed feed rates are incorrect.

[Magnum164]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my points from the previous replies. The cutter will not "feed harder" ever. There are two setting to be aware of. One is "safe level" this should be set to a point above the part (normally a Z+ amount) some of my videos show .1 and some .05 depending apon the mood I am in when I make them. The safe level is the level that it is safe for the cutter to move at a rapid rate to the hight specified. After the cutter has reached this level a G1 with a feed rate value is used to feed the cutter into the part. The feed rate value for the initial cut down into the part will be the "approach feed" You must select the value you want either by designating a % of work feed or giving it a value of it's own. I am willing to bet at no time in your G code that there was a feed rate value of 394. Please post your G code for analysis. The other feed rate you must consider is plunge rate, and you must select a value in the same way you selected a value fro approach feed. In order to understand where these values occur in the G-code I recommended putting in strange values (.123-.567) then looking at the G-code so you know where these occur (see attached picture). I hope the picture clears up any issues. Remember it is always important to review the G code. I don't know of any CAM software that will warn a user that their programmed feed rates are incorrect.

Well really never said that mine had 394 in it, I was more curious if this setting really affected anything.

[RTP_Burnsville]

One of the most important issues discussed when I visited SprutCAM was that the values that they put as default, in many different areas are wrong. It took some explaining to get across to them that a default that is wrong might as well be 0, or blank, then at least we lessen the possibility of a destructive value such as you have.

Yes, I totally agree that no value is many times better than a wrong value. Please continue to stress that issue with SC.

Thanks,
Robert

[MichaelHenry]

Ditto to what Robert said.

Eric, I think that all of us appreciate you acting as a laison with SprutCAM. That can only help the program work better for us.

Mike