Haas NGC - Error 367 Wear Comp along with Inventor CAM 2024

[tdswanson]

Hello all.  I'm still learning the ropes with our new Haas machine and I'm actually doing some of the operation as well.  So it's a new machine and a new operator and an experienced programmer, and all those people are me in this case.

I'm machining an open pocket that's got a mildly tight tolerance, so it's a 2D Contour operation and I turned wear compensation on so I could adjust for size and re run at the machine.  Before I started the program, I probed all the tools per the normal process.  My program ran fine until it got to the first operation with wear comp. turned on, which is when I got Error 367.

I looked up several threads on this and it seems like the solution is to zero out the diameter value that the machine entered during the probing process.  In this case, I was using a 1/4" end mill and the entered value was 0.2493" in that column from the probing process.  I zeroed this column out and then the program ran fine.  The pocket was a little tight, so I went to the wear comp column and entered -0.0005" into that column and re-ran it and it worked fine.

Process wise, my assumption was that the controller used the D value to make the calculations for the moves.  If I zero this out, what column from the offset screen is being used to compute the required moves?  There are columns called "Actual Diameter" and "Approximate Diameter" that are user entered values.  The probing operation populates the D value column which is the one that needs to be cleared.

For future parts, when wear comp is on, should I have the operator skip probing the diameter of a tool like this so they (or I) can manually measure and rerun operations as needed?  Or should I never turn wear comp on in the program at all and figure that the probing operation prior to starting will get me close enough?

I guess I also don't understand why the machine won't roll with the number that was probed and populated in that D field.  The tool was probed before running any parts and wear will theoretically be happening before I get to this point.  So I would think the work flow would want to be to probe it, run the initial program to the probed value, let the operator check the feature and re-run if necessary.  But doesn't seem to match what the machine wants.  Would appreciate any advice.

[lenny_1962]

the wear compensation is not a diam type of comp, it is how much you want the tool to move or remove material.

the in control compensation is the Diam type at the machine.

off compensation is the cutter runs down the middle of the path

[lenny_1962]

https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/367-Cutter-Comp-Er...

https://help.autodesk.com/view/INVHSM/2016/ENU/?guid=GUID-1CAC0C07-B96D-4B97-B49A-D39BF70EFEA5

[tdswanson]

Lenny - Thanks for jumping in with me again to help me learn new things.  I don't think that I adequately represented what my question actually is.  I think I have a good understanding of the differences and use cases for In Control Compensation versus Wear Compensation.  But let me throw out a couple of scenarios that are common for us and see if I can use them to ask my question better.

Case A - I write a program to mill a female slot that's 1inch wide with a 1/4" end mill and I'm using In Control compensation.  The post will spit out code that puts the center of the tool 0.125" off the side walls and the operator has nothing to say about it.  Let's just say he grabbed a re-sharpened tool that's 0.230" in diameter.  The slot in the part that's supposed to be 1" wide will be too narrow because it the machine and the program just runs the code.  Even if he had probed the tool with the WIPS system, which would populate the tool table with the 0.230" diameter, the path would still not be compensated for the diameter difference and the moves are just based on the information that the CAM software had, which was 0.250" and not 0.230".  In this case, using the WIPS system to  probe the tool diameter seems to be of no value.  (Correct me if I've made any incorrect assertions for this case.)

Case B - I write a program to mill the same slot that's 1inch wide with a 1/4" end mill and I'm using Wear compensation.  The post will spit out code that assumes it needs to be offset by 0.125" but the machine controller also factors in what the operator has put in for wear compensation in the tool table.  If they're smart, they've maybe decided to sneak up on it and entered a wear number to plan on an oversized tool.  They can run the operation, measure the part, adjust the wear compensation number in the tool table, re-run the operation and hopefully be good to go.  If the operator probed the tool, the WIPS system enters a diameter of 0.230" for the tool diameter.  But if he runs the program (with wear compensation), it errors out (#367) and won't run unless he zeros the probed diameter number in the tool table.  So again, it seems that probing the tool doesn't have a lot of value because he has to zero the probed value to get the program to run.  I guess he could look at the number (0.230") and then use that to enter 0.010" for his radial wear comp, but he's got to do that manually.  The WIPS doesn't actually give him a usable tool table if he probed the diameter because of error 367.  Again, it doesn't seem like probing the tool diameter has a lot of value. 

So this brings me to my intended question.  In a scenario where there's a tightly tolerenced slot to mill and I want to use *wear compensation* to let the operator adjust to get it right, what is the intended work flow?

Option A - Don't probe the tool diameter.  Take the software's basic offset of 0.125" and the operator should manually use the wear comp to plan for an oversized tool initially, then cut and adjust until the part is right.

Option B - Probe the tool diameter, record the difference, do the math, zero the diameter field in the table from the WIPS system, enter the calculated wear comp value in the table, run, measure, adjust and re-run if necessary.

Option C - Something else I haven't thought of?

Thanks again for your time!

[lenny_1962]

well my answer isn't what you'd like to hear.....
what works best for you in your shop A or B, sorry
We don't use regrinds. so we use B, 99.9% of the time. and we walk up to the size when needed and that is only 10% of the time mainly for bearings pins, and slip fits that the students need on their parts, otherwise +\- .005" is good. maybe others will chime in.
another place to ask this question is on some machinist forums, you'll get a slew of why\why not for more users.

[lenny_1962]

https://practicalmachinist.com/forum/search/2817325/?q=wear+compensation&o=relevance

[tdswanson]

That's a fair point about different shops doing things different ways, no surprise there.  But I guess I'm surprised to find out that Haas' controller and Autodesk's post processor can't be made to play nice together in a more efficient manner.  Know what I mean?  Seems like there's wasted time no matter which method of approach is chosen......