Tangential leadin leadout boring tool path

[Anonymous]

Idea to add the ability to use Tangential leadin's and leadout's on a boring cycle.

as shown in the screen shots when ever you add a Vertical leadin/leadout radius it is added at 90dges to the tool path, when machining a groove this can cause the tool to cut into stock material. the leadins/leadouts should follow the tool path and radius.

please add this feature.

Thanks

Tony

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

 I'm pretty sure this is more a problem with the usage of the operation.

Due to the boundaries of the usage of the circular and bore not being completely clear people tend to use them different than what they were designed for. So that might have to be made more clear on what those paths were designed to do.

Also keep in mind that what you are asking for will mean a linearised path on most machines and I'm pretty sure that that will leave marks on the sidewall.

[Steinwerks]

Looks to me like the real benefit would be changing the leads to allow for separate lead-in and lead-out definitions. Using a vertical lead-out here and keeping it tangential to the bore geometry is going to be pretty weird without a horizontal lead arc. Slot seems more appropriate if this is a roughing path.

[al.whatmough]

I see 8 votes on this one.  However, I tend to agree with the comments.

Can those of you who voted elaborate on what it is you want to see here and maybe expand on the use case.

Thanks,

Al

[scottmoyse]

The boring cycle is for finishing bores right? Using In Control/Wear compensation is handy for adjusting bore tolerances at the machine... To use In Control compensation there has to be a lead in & lead out that allows the machine to activate and deactivate the compensation.

In the example shown, there is no room to have a perpendicular lead in/out that will allow compensation to be applied by the machine. If the boring strategy allowed for a lead in/out that took up less space, then it would work. 

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

 @scottmoyse but that's not what the request is. The request if for the leads to follow the radius/cutting path. And with that you can't turn on the cutter compensation at all.

[scottmoyse]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw Tony is a customer of ours. I know what this is about. Ultimately his request is that he can use wear/in control comp in this scenario with boring. A tangent line with an arc on lead in & out would do that.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

 @scottmoyse just like a 2D Contour with ramping turned on?

[scottmoyse]

No. That's a hack. And you have to use the lead in speed as the cutting feedrate.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@scottmoyse

Can you explain why you find that a hack?

I was more trying to look for a path that looked like you were wanting and I think the actual path you want looks like that. But since you are so clearly against that I'm now curious why you think that.

The ramp feedrate is the feedrate for the ramp. The lead-in feed is still only for the lead-in.(Just tested this again in HSMWorks and there it works like that and it should work like that in Inventor HSM and Fusion 360 as well)

I think the nice thing about the 2D Contour is that you can give in the angle or the cutting depth. Like that you can really be sure your tool can handle the chosen settings.

[scottmoyse]

You're correct about the ramp speed so I take that back. Let's change this idea to 'remove the boring cycle' from HSM because it can be done with 2D contour and a ramp lead. So the boring toolpath is surplus to requirements. And if you really want you can still bore using a drilling toolpath.

Regards
Scott Moyse
Manufacturing & CAM Technical Specialist
Autodesk Expert Elite

[scottmoyse]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw, you mentioned before that what Tony asked for would result in a linearised path on most machines. I don't understand what you mean by that. How is this different to anything else in HSM being linearised or not?

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@scottmoyse

To be honest I would happily see the circular and bore operations removed. Since they are heavily stripped down versions of the 2D Contour with similar operation in the drill cycle I find them indeed more cluttering than useful.

But since they are in the software they should work for their purpose so I'm not saying things can't be added.

So to recap, you are looking for the path that you get when you use the 2D Contour and ramping on? In that case the development can easily check if they think this is a good thing to add and compare the results to see if the enhancement is what is being asked for..

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@scottmoyse if the leads would follow the path you get a move in 3-axis for the vertical lead.

Linearising is not too bad but the idea is that the rest of the bore will be machined in arcs. 

The post will linearise the 3-axis leads to a certain tolerance which means you will more probably see this move make marks on the sidewall.

[scottmoyse]

Ok I understand where you are coming from with linearization of the lead. If the vertical 'arc' followed the diameter of the bore (in which case it would be a spline)... or it wasn't on a G18 or G19 plane, then yeah it may end up getting linearized for sure.

[Steinwerks]

A thought: why couldn't the Lead-out be set to a reverse helix? Move back up in Z along the chain geometry, same arc settings, smoothing still works and no linearization required, with the G41/G40 both at Feed/Retract/Whatever is used height and either the Ramp or Lead-out feedrate. Obviously cancelled with 'Lead to center'.

Just throwing ideas out there.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Moving back would also leave a mark on the part. I mean stopping and reversing usually isn't a real good plan for finishing operations in my experience.

[Steinwerks]

Sorry I didn't phrase that well. I don't mean reverse as in travel the opposite direction, I mean reversing the Z feed direction to move positive instead of negative but keep moving along the part geometry (clockwise or counter-clockwise) in the same direction as when the tool was moving in the negative Z direction.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Steinwerks 

That could work. Would be nice if you could tell it to move away from the face a little as well. So it really wouldn't bother the face that was just finished.

Not sure how that would work with canceling the cutter compensation. Would you see this happen after the "spiral" move back up?

[Steinwerks]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw Yes the cutter compensation cancel would happen once the cutter was out of the part (or toolpath geometry anyway). Our old CAM system does this at times and it can be useful for sure. I think there was a way to force it in Mastercam too but it's been a few years since I've used it so I can't speak to that directly.

Perhaps a Clearance option could be used, but should be optional.

[Anonymous]

 If I may suggest Sandvik the tooling company does offer boring heads with custom insertsinsert bodies for making o-ring Groove applications they can be quite expensive since it is an entire boring head in itself but if you're doing production runs it would make sense to possibly just buy a custom tool to make a shallow bore/ groove.