Index WCS with each Pattern instance

[Anonymous]

Option to output different WCS with each Pattern instance.

Unless my multi part fixture is dead exact with the same spacing as my model I'll output a different work offset for each pattern instance.  Especially when probing each instance.

Right now I have to create a different setup folder to override the WCS and duplicate the operation.  By doing this I have 2 or more separate operations that I have to update independently when I need them to be the same.

Also if indexing the WCS for each Pattern instance was available I could take advantage of the Operation order options.

This option would ideally be placed under the Post Process tab with creating a Pattern.

I know this has been brought in the form in different situations but I didn't see in represented in the Ideas form.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Isn't this kind of the same idea as this one?

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-ideas/allow-new-wcs-value-at-tool-orientation/idi-p/6754702

[Anonymous]

Take a look at the bottom of this page. I think the option to use "Multiple WCS" offsets will accomplish what you want, unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous Thanks, that is basically what I was looking for.  I search the form before posting and this didn't come up.

What it posts it right though it would be nice if the simulation would represent it.  Just for checking clearances with the fixture.  I could create it as normal pattern for simulation then delete it before posting.

@Laurens-3DTechDraw It's similar but not the same.  Your post has to do with multi axis machining and Dynamic Work Offsets. I was more looking at it creating a pattern on a flat plan.  Not sure if what dblack posted id helpful for that application.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Anonymous

If you just want to do the same thing on multiple work-offsets than the Multiple WCS is exactly what you want.

[LibertyMachine]

There is one issue with using the Multiple Work Offset option in the Setup:

It works great when you select the Setup and Post out the entire thing. What happens when you decide you want to add a tool, or change one of the existing tools? You can't just select that one operation and post it out. Well, you can, but it doesn't output the desired Multiple Offsets, just the one offset

EDIT:

I vote to add a button on the last page of the Pattern Dialog. Rather than "Override WCS", give us a button that allows for Multiple WCS and the increment we want

[Anonymous]

I agree @LibertyMachine.  

Putting the button on the last page of the Pattern Dialog for Multiple WCS will:

• Allow you to post single operations while retaining the multiple offsets
• See the simulation of all pattern instances
• Change order of by tool or by operation 
• It is also a logical (intuitive) place for it to be

For better simulation maybe there should be an option to pattern your stock too.  That would give you what you need to properly see everything a pattern is doing.  

[al.whatmough]

Archiving this for now. 

We can revisit this after we have an NC node and a machine definition.

NC node will give us a place to visualize some of these things that currently happen in the post and aren't seen in the GUI like "multiple WCS"

[Anonymous]

I currently have the same problem. I would love to be able to specify to use multiple WCS offsets when using a pattern. I'm currently working on getting this to work for out machine so if anyone at autodesk needs an inventor file, nc code and a postprocessor to test with just let me know.

[dmartinS68QJ]

I too just ran into this limitation.  We are trying to setup a 4 sided tombstone in our HMC with 90Deg index rotation around Y-axis (B-Axis for us).  We would like to use CAM tool pattern and independent wcs for each patterned part that is mounted on the different tombstone side.  I am going to play around with post and possibly adding manual variables of sides & parts/side to see if i can get B rotation into the multiple wcs.    

[griptechshop]

Same annoying problem with not being able to post out single operations with multiple WCS's. Please do something about this!!!

[martin_walter]

@griptechshop,@al.whatmough

This limitation is often annoying when working with fixtures that have multiple form nest work offsets per side like a tower fixture (excuse my english, I'm not a native speaker - hope you get what I want to say).

Especially with customers doing series parts.

There's a number of annoying restrictions(some of them might be bugs), that make it harder to get it right, aswell...

You can do this in the post using a manual NC action, but it's a PITA because the action will not be repeated with the pattern, and on top of that will only be put into the cldata for the last pattern instance.

In order to achive the correct incrementation, you have to place it as first element in the pattern in HSM,

then in the post set an incrementation flag in onParameter(...), save the first section in the pattern when the flag is set, increment the work offset, and deactivate the flag when you hit the first section that's not patterned.

[mjp.purdy]

I figure I'll throw in my $.02:

Fairly simple setup, two of the same part held in a vice. The parts cannot be held facing the same direction, so one is turned 180 degrees. If you use two different setups, you get more tool changes and your post processor has to deal with a funky setup. The pattern component is great, but it would make more sense to have a separate WCS for each instance.

The "Multiple WCS offsets" in the setup dialogue would sort-of work in this example because the hole pattern is symmetrical, but not really because now you have to pick up the second WCS using non-existent geometry or simply do some math. If the hole pattern was not symmetrical, this would be impossible.

It's definitely circumstantial. You wouldn't run into this problem every day, but I can see where someone would have problems nesting parts on a custom fixture.

[riley_smith_333]

So, I see this isn't a new problem.

I'm in the same boat as several others here, and this is the kind of functionality that can really save us loads of time. Seeing as how the issue was first brought up in January of 2017, and here we are nearly 4 years later without a solution, I think I can speak for all of us when I say it's time to take this one out of the "archives".