[didu]

Here's a quick video explaining the issue I'm having. I shot it pretty fast so it's not very polished but it should help clarify the issue I'm having. Also, I forgot to mention that I've checked my tool diameter, and it seems to be right (3/8 tool so .375")

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mxC...ew?usp=sharing

[Kenny Duval]

First question about the probe. Have you checked the runout of the probe. It needs to run fairly concentric to the centerline of the spindle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqUH9YVp1U

[didu]

First question about the probe. Have you checked the runout of the probe. It needs to run fairly concentric to the centerline of the spindle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqUH9YVp1U

Yes! I checked it both with a dial indicator the way this person is and using the routine with pathpilot. I got it to have so little run out I can no longer effectively detect the runout with my dial indicator

[Kenny Duval]

Yes! I checked it both with a dial indicator the way this person is and using the routine with pathpilot. I got it to have so little run out I can no longer effectively detect the runout with my dial indicator

Then my next question is...

Is the rough size of the stock in the vise that size that you have told Fusion that it is? In the file you sent me the you have told Fusion the stock is 4.1 inches wide in X and 5.3 in Y. Is the rough stock actually that size? If it's not this could account for what you believe to be an error in the right side of the cut. If the actual stock is less than 4.1 inches wide and the math originates from the left corner then it will look like what you are seeing when the machine cuts with the information provided.

If you were to change your work origin to the center of the stock then even if the stock was undersized it would not look shifted you would just cut air for a bit before the cutter entered the material.

[didu]

Then my next question is...

Is the rough size of the stock in the vise that size that you have told Fusion that it is? In the file you sent me the you have told Fusion the stock is 4.1 inches wide in X and 5.3 in Y. Is the rough stock actually that size? If it's not this could account for what you believe to be an error in the right side of the cut. If the actual stock is less than 4.1 inches wide and the math originates from the left corner then it will look like what you are seeing when the machine cuts with the information provided.

I just rechecked the stock with my calipers, the width is 4.087(X) and the depth is 5.3055(Y), so I think my numbers are close enough? Also, quick clarifying question! Should I be setting my origin to the top center of the stock as was mentioned above, so that I don't have to worry about potentially having the size of the stock wrong? And if I did this what do I probe to set the origin off of?

[Kenny Duval]

I just rechecked the stock with my calipers, the width is 4.087(X) and the depth is 5.3055(Y), so I think my numbers are close enough? Also, quick clarifying question! Should I be setting my origin to the top center of the stock as was mentioned above, so that I don't have to worry about potentially having the size of the stock wrong? And if I did this what do I probe to set the origin off of?

No..working from a corner is fine as long what you do is consistent. Some times I work from a corner some times I go to the center it just depends on what I am doing. You should always tell Fusion that stock is a little larger than the actual size of the stock. This will make sure you ease into the cuts versus what would happen is you told Fusion the stock was smaller than the actual size of the stock. That's a recipe for a crash or snapping a tool.

So if we believe the probe is running concentric to the centerlne of the spindle, is calibrated well and we have both a good work coordinte system and an accurate measurement of the stock then we have to move to the next question.

Is the machine moving accurately in the X and Y axis. Have you checked and verified that when you tell the machine to move 1 inch in the control that it is accurately moving 1 inch?

[popspipes]

I have one part that I use bottom zero, gives me correct part size as the stock varies. Most of my parts are top Zero though, there is a place for both.

[shred]

Keep eliminating variables and testing. I strongly suggest to stop using model box points for your stock unless you absolutely need to. As soon as you change the stock, Fusion can reset cut depths and all sorts of things.

Is the part its cutting the right size? Cut some smaller scrap or even bits of wood or plastic to get faster answers if need be.

If the part is positioned in the wrong place in the stock but the right size, most likely your offsets are wrong. If it's the wrong size then other things like the tools are set wrong.

You should be able to see everything simulate in Fusion to see what its going to do. Define your stock to match what you have, hit the simulate button and see if it cuts how you think it should.

Once it simulates correctly in Fusion, take that code back to the machine and see what happens. If you have an edgefinder or even a small drill to pick out 0,0 instead of the probe, try that to eliminate the probe as the source of problems.. (set Z by touching off the stock with some paper or whatever other method you like.)

[didu]

Keep eliminating variables and testing. I strongly suggest to stop using model box points for your stock unless you absolutely need to. As soon as you change the stock, Fusion can reset cut depths and all sorts of things.

Is the part its cutting the right size? Cut some smaller scrap or even bits of wood or plastic to get faster answers if need be.

If the part is positioned in the wrong place in the stock but the right size, most likely your offsets are wrong. If it's the wrong size then other things like the tools are set wrong.

You should be able to see everything simulate in Fusion to see what its going to do. Define your stock to match what you have, hit the simulate button and see if it cuts how you think it should.

Once it simulates correctly in Fusion, take that code back to the machine and see what happens. If you have an edgefinder or even a small drill to pick out 0,0 instead of the probe, try that to eliminate the probe as the source of problems.. (set Z by touching off the stock with some paper or whatever other method you like.)

I haven't been able to get model box points to work so I've been sticking to using stock box points! I have a ton of aluminum scrap so I don't mind testing in it (I don't really want to clean my machine after getting wood in it lol). When you say that my offset is the issue if it's positioned incorrectly do you mean my work offsets are wrong or the size of my stock? (Does the size of my stock that I punch into fusion really matter, so long as it's set to something larger than my actual stock so it doesn't crash?). Watching the simulation in fusion everything looks perfect, which is why I thought it was an issue with the probe but it doesn't appear to be. I don't have an edge finder, but I'll try using a small drill to set 0,0 instead!

[shred]

I haven't been able to get model box points to work so I've been sticking to using stock box points! I have a ton of aluminum scrap so I don't mind testing in it (I don't really want to clean my machine after getting wood in it lol). When you say that my offset is the issue if it's positioned incorrectly do you mean my work offsets are wrong or the size of my stock? (Does the size of my stock that I punch into fusion really matter, so long as it's set to something larger than my actual stock so it doesn't crash?). Watching the simulation in fusion everything looks perfect, which is why I thought it was an issue with the probe but it doesn't appear to be. I don't have an edge finder, but I'll try using a small drill to set 0,0 instead!

Don't lie to Fusion about your stock size until you know what it does when you do that. It can skip machining areas it thinks are beyond the stock, pick goofy starting points or it will by default try to center parts in the stock size you gave it (I much prefer to use 'offset from X, offset from Z' rather than 'center' for model position for these reasons)

Good news parts are coming out the right size, that eliminates a lot of possibilites.

I like to zero X,Y back left of the vise (assuming that's the fixed jaw). If you're running a lot of similar parts, Z off the bottom of the stock via parallels or jaw steps so you can find it again if needed.

Make one of your 1.5x1.5 parts, leave it in the vise and then re-probe it. If the corner is where it should be (offset from the stock by the amount you set or shown in 'center') then the probe is behaving properly.

[mactec54]

Don't lie to Fusion about your stock size until you know what it does when you do that. It can skip machining areas it thinks are beyond the stock, pick goofy starting points or it will by default try to center parts in the stock size you gave it (I much prefer to use 'offset from X, offset from Z' rather than 'center' for model position for these reasons)

Good news parts are coming out the right size, that eliminates a lot of possibilites.

I like to zero X,Y back left of the vise (assuming that's the fixed jaw). If you're running a lot of similar parts, Z off the bottom of the stock via parallels or jaw steps so you can find it again if needed.

Make one of your 1.5x1.5 parts, leave it in the vise and then re-probe it. If the corner is where it should be (offset from the stock by the amount you set or shown in 'center') then the probe is behaving properly.

That is a bad practice you should not set the Z Axis offset to the bottom of the work, Z axis should always use a negative number to cut the part

[mountaindew]

That is a bad practice you should not set the Z Axis offset to the bottom of the work, Z axis should always use a negative number to cut the part

Now I am confused

[shred]

Funny. I learned 'Z bottom of stock' in a "real" machine shop. They do it because raw stock is often not all that consistent in thickness when you are doing thousands of parts from multiple bars and you always know where the bottom is going to be every time; not so much for the top. You can also set up off soft jaws without even having the stock there at the machine and if somebody accidentally sets Z to top of stock, you just cut air until you figure it out. Maybe that's "wrong" in some people's books, but they've made many millions of dollars doing it that way...

IMO It's far more important to either be consistent in how you CAM parts, whatever that may be, or extremely attentive to documenting and verifying what you did every time if you ever go back to an old part file.

.

[mactec54]

Funny. I learned 'Z bottom of stock' in a "real" machine shop. They do it because raw stock is often not all that consistent in thickness when you are doing thousands of parts from multiple bars and you always know where the bottom is going to be every time; not so much for the top. You can also set up off soft jaws without even having the stock there at the machine and if somebody accidentally sets Z to top of stock, you just cut air until you figure it out. Maybe that's "wrong" in some people's books, but they've made many millions of dollars doing it that way...

IMO It's far more important to either be consistent in how you CAM parts, whatever that may be, or extremely attentive to documenting and verifying what you did every time if you ever go back to an old part file.

.

The stock is still in the same place no matter how the thickness varies this does not change the way it can be machined from the bottom up or top down it makes not difference, you are obvious not a time served machinist or you would know this

[Kenny Duval]

I'm not in this argument. I use a fixed jaw location most of the time at the bottom of the stock. I do certainly get the argument for working from the top for ease of readability on the machine as the reduced likelihood of a crash. Is this a case where in most instances it's cheaper to just scrap the part if something goes wrong and you no longer have the top of the stock to use to pick back up your WCS point in a production environment. I assume stuff like this becomes far more important in environments where the same person is not always operating the machine so consistency in process takes on a different level of importance.

[machinehop5]

...ask five different machinist how to make a 1-2-3 Block and you'll get 5 different answers. Setting Z from the Fixture with gage blocks would be my preferred way. Stock would be R Plane up to the programmer. One of the 5 machinist choice

[cadcam]

...ask five different machinist how to make a 1-2-3 Block and you'll get 5 different answers. Setting Z from the Fixture with gage blocks would be my preferred way. Stock would be R Plane up to the programmer. One of the 5 machinist choice

What you don't use paper. like I used to do in the early days and seen many do lol but you are correct if you don't have a Probe or a gauge setter then the best is to use a block I fully agree. this is my preferred way most of the time.

[mactec54]

What you don't use paper. like I used to do in the early days and seen many do lol but you are correct if you don't have a Probe or a gauge setter then the best is to use a block I fully agree. this is my preferred way most of the time.

And you say to use a block as a preferred method, is what you teach

Touching off to a Hardened Block or using gauge blocks can damages a cutter, there are hundreds that use this method and wonder why there cutters leave marks on the face if it is being used for face milling

A Plastic shim .007 to .010" thick, just cut some 1/2" wide pieces, should be used between the block and cutter to prevent any cutter damage, so you can now add this to your teaching

As machineshop5 said there is more than one way to do a setup and it is what is the most efficient way for the job being done

[metalmayhem]

Touching off to a Hardened Block or using gauge blocks can damages a cutter, there are hundreds that use this method and wonder why there cutters leave marks on the face if it is being used for face milling

if using common sense a guy travels the z below the block then raises it until the block can slide under the cutter . This will prevent damage to the tool vs bringing the cutter down till it contacts the block .
Personally I prefer dowel pins which which have much less contact surface and reduces interference

[mactec54]

if using common sense a guy travels the z below the block then raises it until the block can slide under the cutter . This will prevent damage to the tool vs bringing the cutter down till it contacts the block .
Personally I prefer dowel pins which which have much less contact surface and reduces interference

No matter how you do it, there is still metal to metal contact and some damage will happen to the cutter especially if your cutter is carbide, HSS is a little more forgiving