Still Having Dropped Geometry References

[ARTHUR-HM]

I thought the problem was gone, but sure enough, the last two designs I made have had this issue again.

I design a part, make a whole bunch of setups and operations for said part. Everything simulates great, all tool paths are correct.

I save the part. Come back. All toolpaths still look great, but. If I have to regenerate them, they lose geometry references I used to create that operations.

Example:

This is a spiral operation. The pocket here has two pockets that cut through it. I created two patches to plug up those whole during the spiral operation. All is great. Image two shows what happens when I come back and have to regenerate the tool path.

This is bound to cause issues with collaboration because I cannot expect everyone to double and triple check that none of the references were dropped on every single operation.

[xander.luciano]

Hey, sorry about this issue!

Do you happen to have joints in this model? Is there a reproducible way to reproduce this? Does it happen across multiple computers? Any information like such would help pin down the issue.

thanks,
Xander Luciano

[ARTHUR-HM]

I haven't been able to reproduce it consistantly. The issue shows up across multiple computers and users. There are no joints in that model. I could send you the file if you'd like. I cannot post it publicly here though.

I just re-opened the file, and it's back to dropping the references. I fixed them. Saved the operations. Re-opened again and they're back to being dropped again. So this file definitely still suffers from this issue. It might be a patch surface issue. The dropped references are both patch surfaces used to plug the hole up. So maybe that's a direction to look into.

Thanks

Edit: take the last part back. The surface in between the two patch surfaces gets dropped as well, which is part of the solid model. So that theory is probably incorrect. 

[innovatenate]

Is there any chance you could share this design with me so that I can try and reproduce the issue? 

At first glance, it seems like the Avoid/Touch surface settings may not be persisting across saves or something. I wondering if there are any body geometry errors in the design. Feel free to private message me a link if you prefer to keep the design private.

Thanks,

[innovatenate]

Thanks for sharing the design with me. When I open up the design and edit the Spiral operation, I note that the Contact Only option is enabled in the Geometry tab.

Is Contact Only enabled (checked) intentionally?

When I disable this option, it seems to resolve the issue. I've tried save and re-opening > regenerating the toolpath a few times, but I haven't seen this option change on its own. 

I hope that helps. Let me know either way! I'm happy to keep digging.

Thanks,

[ARTHUR-HM]

The issue I am having isn't with contact only, it's with what's below that. Where it says model. Notice how on your screenshot it only has one face listed. When there should actually be four. It keeps losing those faces on me. If I take off contact only, it still doesn't bring back those three missing faces. And with the operation above that on you're looking at in the photo, contact only isn't even an option for that operation. That "Pocket2" operation also drops faces I have selected. 

[ARTHUR-HM]

So I did a test. I unchecked contact only. Reselected the missing faces on the model section of geometry tab. So a total of four faces were selected. Tool path looks right. I save, close, and re-open. 

Open that spiral1 operation again. Faces missing again. So if the tool path is regenerated with those faces gone, the toolpath is wrong. See photo below. The path is supposed to look like the first photo in my first post above.

[innovatenate]

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure why the surface selection is not persisting across save, re-open, & generate toolpath. I was able to reproduce the issue on my end and have logged it with development (reference ID CAM-5610).  We will review the issue further to see what action is appropriate to resolve this issue.

For now, you may be able to use the contact only option I mentioned before as a work-around solution. With the contact only option enabled (checked), you don't need to make any model selection to generate a persistent tool path. In fact you can just disable that whole section of the geometry tab. The selection made in the geometry portion of the geometry tab are enough in this case.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

[xander.luciano]

I'm wondering if this might be related to either CAM-5279 or FUS-28646.

"I just re-opened the file, and it's back to dropping the references. I fixed them. Saved the operations. Re-opened again and they're back to being dropped again."

Reading Al's second comment on CAM-5279 this sounds similar.

Thoughts?
-Xander Luciano

[LibertyMachine]

Sorry to intrude on this thread, as I've nothing specific to offer to the matter at hand.

---

@xander.luciano wrote:
I'm wondering if this might be related to either CAM-5279 or FUS-28646.

"I just re-opened the file, and it's back to dropping the references. I fixed them. Saved the operations. Re-opened again and they're back to being dropped again."

Reading Al's second comment on CAM-5279 this sounds similar.

Thoughts?
-Xander Luciano

---

The tone of this comment makes it sound as if the community can actually look up CAM-xxxx reports and see comments. Am i reading that incorrectly? If we can, where do we find status updates on specific CAM bug reports?

[xander.luciano]

Sorry for the confusion on that last comment Seth!

That was directly towards Nathan to get his input on the matter without typing up an email and providing the context. That comment would have been better suited for an internal discussion though.

I like to provide issue numbers when users report bugs to provide a link between the user report and the bug report. In that way if an issue arises in the future and someone links back to an old thread I can see what issue was previously logged and read through the status, preventing the possibility of creating duplicate items.

Sorry for the confusion there,
Xander Luciano