Chamfer OP Not Cutting Complete Contour

[tspinetti]

I've spent the last four hours trying to figure out why my perimeter chamfer operation is cutting only a portion of the part profile.  The chamfer OP cuts the pocket chamfers and the back portion of the perimeter profile but not the front portion (finger grip area).  I've tried breaking up the chamfer OP into single sections, i.e. pockets only and finger grip area only, but no luck.  At this point my mind is mush.  Any help is appreciated.  F3D file attached for reference.

[Anonymous]

If you turn off model while in simulation mode, you'll see that tool cuts chamfer all around.

[tspinetti]

Exactly.  It shows cutting the chamfer in simulation but when running the job it doesn't cut the chamfer on the front side/grip area. 

[Anonymous]

Looks like I missed that, you can model chamfer instead and use 2D contour which does have chamfer option within.

I never use 2D chamfer toolpath, it seems to have some ongoing issues or your post is not properly interpreting what I see in simulation.

[Anonymous]

I redefined X orientation in setup, modelled chamfer and used 2D contour, try that.

[tspinetti]

I've run the chamfer operations and cut the chamfers on all surfaces (pockets, rear, and sides of the part) except it doesn't cut the front/grip area chamfer.  Is this a bug as I've used the 2D chamfer op many times in the past with no problems?

I will try using the contour op tomorrow and see how that works out. 

[tspinetti]

I'll try contour tomorrow.  Please explain why you redefined the X axis using the back/bottom edge.  I would have thought to define the X axis selecting a face or edge on one of the ends was the correct method.  

[Anonymous]

In setup of your file, you used face that is parallel with Y axis so I changed it to long edge that is parallel with X axis because option you selected  calls for defining Z and X axis, not Z and Y axis.

You can select face, edge of model or sketch line.

I picked bottom of model edge for contour because after modeling chamfer original selection was invalid.

Your facing tool heights were set wrong and I changed that as well.

[seth.madore]

@tspinetti  what post processor are you using?
Running the Chamfer through the Haas Post processor and then onto backplotter, I get this:

If there is a feature missing (even though it's shown in the sim), my first place to look is at the machine. After that, I see that you have the facemill going .01 below model top. Your chamfer is .04", so there should be plenty left over...

[Anonymous]

Actually, after taking closer look, correcting setup for X axis orientation was not necessary, it's just the way I prefer to do it but I think I was on target with rest of the assessment, including fixing your face mill settings to finish at top of the model, not .01 below.

I do mill-turn work and in many cases I have no flat faces to chose from as X or Y axis orientation, like doing tapped holes, so I am used to working with edges and sketched lines.

Also Faces are perpendicular to axis and edges or sketched lines are parallel to axis which threw me off when I did it, just to clarify.

[Anonymous]

I see that his 2D chamfer worked fine in simulation and it posts using Haas VF2 post, I have never encountered such thing myself. How would PP decide to post only front of the tool path correctly and omit back side?

I always got all or nothing, in line with simulated tool path.

[seth.madore]

My one thought is if he's for some reason changing WCS at some point, perhaps if he posts out code for each tool individually. It sounds to me like the code may be shifted in the Y axis 🤔

[Anonymous]

There was a post the other day where OP reported problem with 2D chamfer only cutting convex part of the profile and omitting all concave parts of it ,........ this has to be the clue I think, using 2D contour to chamfer edge fixed that problem. 

Although in that post, simulation showed omitted parts,.... so can it be combination of PP and 2D chamfer conspiracy?

[tspinetti]

I'm using Mach3 post processor.  If it were a machine issue, I'm assuming you are referring to missed steps or excessive Y axis backlash, then wouldn't the chamfer be wider than programmed on the backside?    

[tspinetti]

Thanks for the clarification.  I was a bit confused with your first reply but I do understand your logic.

[tspinetti]

I can post the code later if anyone is interested.  I don't believe the WCS has shifted because the chamfer width on the areas where it did cut are .040" as programmed.  If there was a shift then the width would be much wider.  

[tspinetti]

For info I ran a different part and it also had a ,040" programmed chamfer width around the perimeter.  It cut the chamfer as expected.  The issue has to be with the problem part whether it is the machine, the post processor, Fusion 360, or me.

[DarthBane55]

---

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Looks like I missed that, you can model chamfer instead and use 2D contour which does have chamfer option within.

I never use 2D chamfer toolpath, it seems to have some ongoing issues or your post is not properly interpreting what I see in simulation.

---

---

No need to model the chamfer, in 2d contour you can also pick edges and set the chamfer width to what you want within the operation. 

But I too use 2d contour for chamfering 95% of the time instead of 2d chamfer because it seems that the "chamfer clearance" options only works in certain perfect scenarios, but often it won't chamfer some places, it seems that it sees issues where there isn't any and decides that it would collide, therefore omitting some chamfers.  Ran into that so often that I pretty much never use it anymore.  It works really well on perfectly well defined walls that are clear cut, but when you have tapered walls and whatnot, that 2d chamfer doesn't work well at all.

[Anonymous]

I prefer to model chamfers because I can tune in toll depth and offset precisely and watch result in simulation rather then assume that given values will result in same without modeled chamfer, it depends on application.

[DarthBane55]

Yes I see, good idea!  I thought you were telling the OP that he had to model them.  Nothing wrong in modelling them!  Just wanted to specify that you don't have to if you don't want to 😁