[LockTech]

Attached is my workpiece that I am trying to get the tool path set up for. Whenever I compute the tool path the z level is different from the left pocket area from the right pocket area even though its just one tool path. Its acting as though one side is milling down to exact depth while the other is leaving some for a finish pass.

For example the right side toolpath is shown going all the way to the bottom and the left side tool path stops above the surface to be cut.

I tried basic 3d roughing and advanced 3d roughing, they both do the same thing. I would understand it if both sides of the workpiece were doing the same thing(either going to the bottom, or not) but since its one toolpath and they differ from each other, I'm lost as to why.

Hopefully the tools will transfer with the bobcad file, but if it doesnt I was just using a .25 em, not that that should matter.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Keith

[tubeguy]

I had something like this happen and it turned out to be a issue with my model. Quick thought, Im sure one of the experts will help out.

[The Engine Guy]

Only way I could get it to work was to save out the Z level rough feature and reload it and then set geometry and boundaries for the right and left so there is two separate features, try the attached file.

Also odd thing, I can`t run it through the sim, it just crashes my V25

Regards

[aldepoalo]

Keith,



picture sharing


You have a couple of options to try here.

1) Change the DOC you are using. Sometime geometry conditions can cause this, so by changing your DOC slightly it can give you a better result.

In your example your DOC was .1, Even if it appears there is room for 1 more pass mathematically there might not be.

I changed your DOC to 0.08 and this is the result:


free picture hosting


Note: The DOC ( depth of cut) using Z level finish is an incremental value. The tool path will be generated stepping down at this value. It does not recognize the bottom of the part or flat areas.

2) Using a different tool path process. Even though you are working with a solid, all of the features of this part can be machined with 2D tool paths. I would recommend considering using pockets and profiles for this example.

If you are going to use 3D tool paths using Advance rough you can finish the flat areas. On the options tab you see a check box for machine flatlands. Using this option the software will identify the flat areas of your part and machine them.


images

[aldepoalo]

With the attached file I created wire frame for each of the pockets I wanted to cut. After which I used 2D pocketing for each of them.

To control where the tool started cutting and ended cutting ( because we are cutting pockets in pockets ) I used the top of part setting for each pocket to "choose" where the tool path would start cutting from....

Also to make easier for work of setting up the pocket setting and DOC using save and load feature would stream line the process. I didn't use save and load in this example, but I should have.


It took me about 20 mins or so from start to finish....

[aldepoalo]

Now here is the same part cut with 1 advance rough feature using machine flat land.

I did not leave any stock so the part would be cut to finish. If you are not holding tight tolerances this would be a quick way to create the tool path. It took me 1 min to setup and create the tool path.


photo sharing

[LockTech]

Thanks for all the different tips. I had considered just doing them as 2d, but since my workpiece was 3d I thought i'd try that route first.

aldepoalo, Is the "machine flatlands new to v25? I have v24 and dont see the option. I did experiment with the DOC but never really came across one that got both sides.

As you suggest I think 2d will be the way to go. I am curious if the "machine flatlands would effectively work also, or so-so?

[LockTech]

Oops did not see the updates. From your example I see machine flatlands will work fine and would be faster. I do still have the line drawings that I used to remve stock from the block so creating the 2d toolpath would be pretty simple. I did not think of using wireframe to accomplish the same thing, thanks for that suggestion as well.

[LockTech]

Apparently I can open the file without v25.

[LockTech]

Eerrr I mean only open it with v25. Wont let me since I am using v24