2D contour, milling, using “ramp”, bottom of cut

2D contour, milling, using “ramp”, bottom of cut

chuck767
Advocate Advocate
1,397 Views
10 Replies
Message 1 of 11

2D contour, milling, using “ramp”, bottom of cut

chuck767
Advocate
Advocate

When Doing a simple 2D contour milling and using the “ ramp” setting, when I set the “ bottom height “ to zero , from “ stock bottom “ the resulting G code has the Cutter going 0.040” below the stock bottom. 

I have tried changing “ stock, bottom” to “Model, bottom”, with the same result. 

how do I get the cutter to only cut to the bottom of the part, not .040 inches below the bottom? 

thanks,

Chuck

0 Likes
Accepted solutions (2)
1,398 Views
10 Replies
Replies (10)
Message 2 of 11

jhackney1972
Consultant
Consultant

This is one of two duplicate posts.  The titles are different but the question is the same.  Please do not duplicate post.  The Forum will need a little more from you to be able to help.  You did not specify the Post Processor you are using to create your code.  If this process is not a standard one, supplied by Autodesk, you will need to attach the Post Processor (cps) file itself.  Also, please attach the model that is showing this issue.  If you do not know how to attach your Fusion 360 model follow these easy steps. Open the model in Fusion 360, select the File menu, then Export and save as a F3D or F3Z file to your hard drive. Then use the Attachments section, of a forum post, to attach it.

John Hackney, Retired
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature

0 Likes
Message 3 of 11

chuck767
Advocate
Advocate

Sorry, didn't realize the double post.

 

I'm using MACH3 PP  is from Artsoft

 

Here is Fusion file 

 

and gcode file.

 

I tried Mach4 with same 0.040" problem. the PP is from Artsoft also

 

Thanks,

Chuck

0 Likes
Message 4 of 11

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant
Accepted solution

The code goes to the correct depth -0.24.

Is the problem you're seeing because the stock in the setup has 0.40" stock top offset? The part is 0.2 but stock is 0.24

HughesTooling_0-1690187551205.png

 

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


0 Likes
Message 5 of 11

chuck767
Advocate
Advocate

That sounded like the solution, but I went into the stock  set up and change the top and bottom offset to zero and I still end up with the cut being 0.24”

 

 

0 Likes
Message 6 of 11

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

Upload the f3d here again.

 

Thanks Mark

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


0 Likes
Message 7 of 11

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

This is what I see in Fusion after updating the setup and regenerating the op.

HughesTooling_0-1690207256143.png

 

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


0 Likes
Message 8 of 11

chuck767
Advocate
Advocate

It definitely shows 0.20

The problem must be with the Mach3 post processor. 

 

0 Likes
Message 9 of 11

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant
Accepted solution

After changing the setup did you regenerate the 2d OP?

 

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


0 Likes
Message 10 of 11

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@chuck767 Also I notice you have several NC Programs in the browser, you should either use them when posting or turn the option off on the post dialog if you don't want to use them.

HughesTooling_0-1690207598688.png

 

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


Message 11 of 11

chuck767
Advocate
Advocate

No, I did not.

 

I tried again and now everything works fine. Thank you for the solution.

0 Likes