Which is right, tool path in browser, or in simulation?

[jeffescott]

Please see set up : lever tool path 2d contour 30 (2).

Note the yellow tool path lines that appear to go through the end of the lever.

Then compare that with the simulation.  the simulation does not show the yellow tool path lines carving up the body.

Also please not the NC program LEVER B&C 116F, this shows the proper tool path in simulation.

I conclude there is something wrong with the browser tool path....another glitch?  Really don't to waste some titanium....

[kacper.suchomski]

Hi

This is just a graphical issue.

Ctrl+G fixes this issue.

[DarthBane55]

If you have to regen, it's not just graphical.  That means if he posted without regen (even the the toolpath was green), it would have posted going thru his part.  If the path needs regen, it's supposed to be yellow.  To me, this is not just a glitch, it's a major one.

[kacper.suchomski]

---

@jeffescott wrote:

That means if he posted without regen (even the the toolpath was green), it would have posted going thru his part.

---

I don't know this, you can check it by generating and comparing NC codes before and after regeneration.

In any case, you can fix it easily.

[seth.madore]

Is this a toolpath and file that you programmed very recently, or are you returning to an older file and making some modifications?

I only ask, because this was encountered by another customer in October of 2024, CAM-57845 was logged for it, but that was the beginning and end of the issue. 

The fact that regenerating clears it up concerns me, especially if you aren't seeing it change on your end.

[seth.madore]

It's a glitch, for sure, but I don't think it elevates to "Major". What's happening is that we're calculating (for some reason) an extra "zero length" arc move:

 

[jeffescott]

So I was unable to fix the problem.  I didn't know about ctl G.  So I deleted the problem tool path, and put the tool path in original contour path.  ie two contours in on tool path.  That fixed it for me.

The reason I normally run the contours in separate paths, is that depending upon where the entry is the machine moves a cutting speed to the next path...(normally not a problem but with Ti I am cutting at 250mm/min).  

Also when I was having trouble with breaking bits, I wanted to cut one part then the next part.

I suppose it was more of a waste of time then anything else....

[ktorokU233T]

@seth.madore 

An "extra" zero length arc move sounds like a major problem to me. Using IJK on some controls will cause a complete 360° circle to be cut. I had a previously used CAM system do this on 1 level of a multi depth HEM routine and it caused major headaches. It might not SIM like a full circle, but it might real world into a full circle. 

[viacheslav.shapilov]

Fusion's postprocessor should ignore such kind of arcs. It has some additional processing of them.

[pkomatlapalli]

Hi @jeffescott ,

Did the info from @DarthBane55 , @seth.madore , @ktorokU233T and @viacheslav.shapilov help answer your question?

If so, please consider clicking the "Accept Solution" button. Doing so helps others in the community find answers to similar issues.

If your question still needs more attention, feel free to reply here with an update. This way, other members can jump in with further suggestions or guidance to help you move forward.

All the best,

Pavan Kumar | Community Manager.

[ktorokU233T]

I hope so. You never sent me in the wrong direction on post issues before, so I'll have to believe you on this one also.

[jeffescott]

the file was originated after october 2024

[jeffescott]

No the "glitch" has not been fixed....or even decided has a major or minor glitch.

[GeorgeRoberts]

If you use machine simulation, the paths you see there are the ones output and processed by the post processor. I loaded this your file into machine simulation and can see the large arcs aren't in the posted result

Like others said, I would recommend regenerating as that gets rid of this small arc entirely