Force tool change for finish path in pocket operations.

[sam]

It would be nice to force a tool change for the finish path in pocket ops.

I often rough a pocket with an old end mill & then finish it with a new end mill of the same size.

This leaves me with a better finish since the endmill I use to rough with is an old one that has already taken a beating or has taken a beating during the roughing op. And also leaves me with a better size (especially in the bottom of the pocket, since the tips of end mills seem to wear faster.) Especially when I have to be within a couple tenths. (ex. 1.625 +.0003, -.0001) The walls of a pocket can be slightly tapered, and when checking with a gage pin, I like the pin to go to the floor with a tight fit & not be loose at the top if the pocket. As it is now, if I use a pocket op I'll usually disable the finish pass & add a countour op to finish the pocket. So, it would be nice to be able do this within the pocket operation just by selecting force tool change for finish pass and specify tool number.

[Steinwerks]

You can force a tool change using the Manual NC command in between toolpaths, although the post may need tweaking to get exactly what you want. I don't know that you'll get a lot of traction asking for a forced change in the middle of a toolpath though (or that's how I read your post anyway).

You may be able to do that via the post processor though, but I don't know how easy an edit that'd be.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Steinwerks

I have the feeling he does manual tool changes. On a Tormach for example.

Because if it was for an automatic tool change I would say we need a lot more control than just calling a new number.

[narzinskin]

I could be reading this wrong but i think there is an easy solution here.  I would just use stock to leave, then duplicate the operation, change the tool, and uncheck stock to leave.

[lenny_1962]

There are some CAM software's that allow you to call out a rough and finish tool in the same op.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@lenny_1962

Agreed and that would be nice in some cases. But than you would want to do more than just fill in the tool number of the finishing tool.

I mean you would want to just select another tool from the library. So really have two tools for one operation.

That I would vote for.

[lenny_1962]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw

sorry I thought that was inferred in what I said, 2 totally different tools with different speeds and feeds, in the same op.

Hurco even has this in their conversational control software, we use that alot even if it is the same tool we can change the feed and speed for the finish pass. 

[ArjanDijk]

I think this comes close to the discussion about featurebased programming, where you can use one feature for multiple roughing and finishing operations which makes up for a cleaner CAM Browser.

In the current way of working Finishing in pocket is to limited for me so I always use a separate contour operation for finishing.

I'm afraid that 2 tools in one operation will intefere with the idea that almost every operation work in the same way, whats in my opinion one of the biggest differentiators from other CAM software.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@ArjanDijk

Personally, I think we could create some kind of best of both words if you could link geometry from one operation to another.

So that it is parametric, if you change the original selection that the linked operations geometry change as well.

That way we don't have to go like feature based systems to define something you link an operation too but you could just say for the geometry of 2D Contour1 look at 2D Pocket2, so to speak

[ArjanDijk]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw: That would be a great option! When I show current users of feature based CAM software the ease of use of programming complex surfaces, they are impressed. If after that I show them how much selection clicks they need for drilling/tapping holes, they want to keep their current software. 

Your solution would be a great help. Can you put it in an idea?

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@ArjanDijk

Will do.