Announcements

The Autodesk Community Forums has a new look. Read more about what's changed on the Community Announcements board.

Preview Lathe roughing feedback.

HughesTooling
Consultant

Preview Lathe roughing feedback.

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

Just some feedback on the preview lathe roughing strategy. 

If I set Tool Limit to Cutting Edge in the attached file the op fails.

image.png

When set to Contact Point it seems limited to the cutting edge. Below there's no going past the back limit like with the original strategies, this is how I've always wanted it anyway.

image.png

 

Next problem is the first pass doesn't cut.

image.png

Last problem is no control over leads. No angled approach and no control over feed rates.

 

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
Reply
653 Views
17 Replies
Replies (17)

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

Same part but other end.

Same problem with first cut not cutting any material but also there is a fine pass at the finish diameter. This is actually quite useful. In another CAM software I've used you had the option to have a fine cut that didn't fit the depth of cut stepdown as either the first cut or the last cut. So you might want the fine cut first if cleaning up rough bar or you might want it as the last cut as a semi finish cut. Files attached again for this end.

image.png

 

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

Anonymous
Not applicable

Looking at your file, clearing tangential extension value removes cutting air on first pass and clean up pass at the end.

This results in only cutting stock and only cutting uncut area such as undercut on short side of shaft.

Changing depth of cut will result in either undercut being last pass or undercut being included in last pass starting from face.

 

Now, the usefulness of air pass is debatable, one air pass may be useful in castings and forgings where shape and size varies but I would not opt for this for two reasons.

First, if stock is inconsistent, interrupted cut and shallow / deep fluctuation would more likely result in destroying insert tip before tool reaches end of first pass.

Second, air pass over long shaft or large diameter is waste of cycle time.

I prefer to make one pass over inconsistent stock by making one pass below lowest point, but at slower feed rate to prevent tool from chipping when it goes over thicker stock. 

Slow feed will produce strings so pecking takes care of that, once stock is uniform in size and top surface is removed, I can step up feed rate and rough rest of the stock with same conditions.

 

Last pass being significantly shallower then all other passes will likely produce strings, the hairball gets wrapped around tool and then driven into the shoulder while cutting undercut at the same time,............ not good.

 

I will agree that there are times when this could be beneficial but in most cases it is not.

In G71 and G72 cycles, cleanup pass is done by default and it can be a challenge to avoid strings on last pass as breaking chips is relative to depth of cut, spindle speed, feed rate, insert style and material type.

So CAM generated code that avoids last, shallow pass is preferable.

0 Likes

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

Hi @HughesTooling 

First of all , thanks for taking the time to review the new strategies and providing your feedback.

 

1 When the back limit is a vertical wall, the contact point limit is going to be the same as the cutting edge limit since the contact point IS the cutting edge in this particular circumstance. As you've correctly noticed, we've completely eliminated the tool "rollover" over the back edge since that did not seem to do anybody any good at all and was based upon the back limit being calculated using the center of the tool nose, not the contact point.

 

2 The first pass cutting air is a known issue that has been fixed.

 

3 We eliminated the lead angles and lead moves for roughing because we modeled the new roughing strategy based on the G71 canned cycle which does not support these things. Is there a particular reason why you need lead angles and a separate lead feed rate for roughing?

 

Thanks,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
0 Likes

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling Sorry, forgot to mention that the bug where the toolpath fails to generate when you set back Z tool limit to cutting edge has also been fixed.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
0 Likes

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@akash.kamoolkar wrote:

Hi @HughesTooling 

First of all , thanks for taking the time to review the new strategies and providing your feedback.

 

1 When the back limit is a vertical wall, the contact point limit is going to be the same as the cutting edge limit since the contact point IS the cutting edge in this particular circumstance. As you've correctly noticed, we've completely eliminated the tool "rollover" over the back edge since that did not seem to do anybody any good at all and was based upon the back limit being calculated using the center of the tool nose, not the contact point.

 

Are the original lathe ops going to be updated to work like this as well (eliminate rollover). Or at least have the option.

 

 


@akash.kamoolkar wrote:

 

3 We eliminated the lead angles and lead moves for roughing because we modeled the new roughing strategy based on the G71 canned cycle which does not support these things. Is there a particular reason why you need lead angles and a separate lead feed rate for roughing?

 

Thanks,

Akash Kamoolkar


One of my lathes is an old Harrison trainer lathe with steppers and a rapid to the cut diameter might overshoot. The ball screws are quite good so might not be a problem have to test more, as it's only roughing perhaps it doesn't matter. Some controls have different backlash allowances for rapid or feed moves that would work around this. If the old lathe ops were updated to work like the new ops this wouldn't matter.

 

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

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling 

in a canned cycle the tool rapids to the previous depth of cut, then feeds to the next depth of cut so you would not be rapiding directly to the depth of cut. Would this help with your situation? Currently the toolpath in the new roughing strategy rapids directly to the next depth of cut but we're working on changing it to have a more canned cycle type of movement. 

 

The plan is to phase out the old strategies altogether in due course and substitute them with the new strategies. So we won't be adding any bug fixes or enhancements to the old strategies. This is because we don't want to expend our  development resources maintaining old strategies which, to be honest, have a lot of issues and we hope the new strategies will eventually satisfy the requirements of all our users so they would not have to use the old strategies anymore.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
1 Like

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@akash.kamoolkar  I think I'm going to have problems with something like the attached file.

Below using the new roughing op the Z is rapid back then straight into the diameter on trailing faces. Also note the first part of the ball is not machined with the new roughing op.

image.png

The old ops are a lot nicer giving an angled lead in. If you're going to drop the old ops what's going to happen with existing designs that contain the old ops?

image.png

 

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

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

From the design above. Think there should be more\some clearance as the tool moves across the second ball. Checking the G code this move is done at rapid as well!

image.png

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

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling Thanks for the response. It's this kind of feedback that we hope to incorporate into the new strategies so they will work for you as well, if not better than the old strategies.

 

With regard to the back face, the tool won't be entering into the material vertically but along the model surface. From a machining stand point does it matter how it moves to the first point outside the material (vertically or an angle)?

 

With regard to the front face not being machined, that's a bug that we've already fixed.

 

With regard to when we phase out the new strategies, old files with existing strategies will continue to work as before. You will still be able to edit them and regenerate them. You just won't be able to create new "old strategy" operations.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
1 Like

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling The bug where the rapid traverse move doesn't leave a clearance on the ball has been fixed too.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
0 Likes

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@akash.kamoolkar wrote:

 

With regard to the back face, the tool won't be entering into the material vertically but along the model surface. From a machining stand point does it matter how it moves to the first point outside the material (vertically or an angle)?

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar


@akash.kamoolkar  I see the op has the same "Overlap" as the old op so yes it's not straight into a cut. Where I might have a problem is the direction change on the Z is done while the tool is touching the part. With the angled lead it gives the control a chance to remove any backlash before it touches the part. Not a problem if you have a nice new machine and a good control but don't always have that option. I'll have to test and see if it's a big problem or not. Although I can leave a good allowance on the diameter for cleanup you can't really do that on the Z if you have 90° faces, have to experiment with no dragging to see if that will help.

 

If you're dropping the old roughing op what's going to happen to the pecking and no dragging options in the roughing op, or are they going to be added to the new roughing op?

 

Also noticed the lead in\out feeds are not being read from the tool in the new or old ops.

image.png

 

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


1 Like

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling 

Please let me know how it goes with using the new roughing infeeds. If there's an actual issue with the new infeeds on your machine then we will consider adding some flexibility in lead angles. Our aim in creating these new strategies was to make turning easier to use and one way of achieving it was to simplify the user interface and so we started out from a bare bones strategy which we hope will satisfy most user requirements. But we are not against adding more features as users request them.

 

Pecking is included in the new roughing strategy. We're considering putting no-drag back into roughing as well. Currently it is only included with the new finishing strategy.

 

I'll look into the lead feeds issue.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
2 Likes

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@akash.kamoolkar  Here's an example where control of the in feed angle is useful. I make injection moulds and sometime make caps where you need to plunge in to the face of an insert. There might be tools better suited to this but I'm able to use a vbmt tipped boring bar and a shallow lead in angle to cut from the centre. File's attached. To me having options like this not available in canned cycles is part of the reason for using CAM. I've used leads like this on other jobs to help get around tricky parts where rigidity's a problem.

image.png

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

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

Something odd using the example part above with the new profile op set to internal profiling. 

image.png

Goes even more crazy if you select a profile under model. File's attached. Don't know if I've got something wrong or a bug. 

image.png

Is the roughing op going to have a pass direction, 90° would be better.

image.png

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

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

@HughesTooling 

The file doesn't seem to be attached.

 

For 90 degree pass direction set the "cycle" parameter to vertical passes.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
0 Likes

HughesTooling
Consultant
Consultant

@akash.kamoolkar wrote:

@HughesTooling 

The file doesn't seem to be attached.

 

For 90 degree pass direction set the "cycle" parameter to vertical passes.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar


File attached, that'll tech me for rushing before going home.

 

Thanks for the info on horizontal\vertical, see now some options have moved from the Tool tab to the Passes tab. Actually makes more sense for them to be on the passes tab.

 

The problem I show above with the profile op also shows when I change the roughing cycle to vertical. Also any thoughts on post #14 using lead in angles to help with plunging into a face. Could you not have something similar to the thread op where enabling\disabling cycles adds\removes options from the dialog.

image.png

 

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

akash.kamoolkar
Autodesk
Autodesk

Hi @HughesTooling 

Once again, thanks for spending time playing with the new strategies and offering this valuable feedback. I see what you're saying about the entry angles, you're basically using it as a "ramping" move to enter the material. This seems like a legit case for having an entry angle for roughing. Let me look into it. As an aside, we already hide certain dialog items when you select canned cycles, eg: pecking, so it has precedence.

 

The vertical passes bug has been fixed. The finishing toolpaths look much better in the develop build although there is a bug with the lead outs that I discovered while looking at your toolpaths. Again, thanks for helping us improve the software by investing time into it.

 

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar



Akash Kamoolkar
Software Development Manager
1 Like