Community
I had to leave a bit of radial stock on Swarf 1 because it was cutting into the model, when Swarf 2 wasn't (not sure why, maybe there is a difference between the faces due to the swept cut in the model?)The face needs to be parallel to the x axis and coincident with the Z axis as all times for 4th axis substitution to work.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
I had to leave a bit of radial stock on Swarf 1 because it was cutting into the model, when Swarf 2 wasn't (not sure why, maybe there is a difference between the faces due to the swept cut in the model?)The face needs to be parallel to the x axis and coincident with the Z axis as all times for 4th axis substitution to work.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
I would also model those surfaces beyond where you need them, so you can continue the cut off the ends of the slots, but still follow the cylinder.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
I would also model those surfaces beyond where you need them, so you can continue the cut off the ends of the slots, but still follow the cylinder.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
scottmoyse wrote:
I had to leave a bit of radial stock on Swarf 1 because it was cutting into the model, when Swarf 2 wasn't (not sure why, maybe there is a difference between the faces due to the swept cut in the model?)The face needs to be parallel to the x axis and coincident with the Z axis as all times for 4th axis substitution to work.
This is true 4-axis Scott.(That is in the multi-axis operations.)
Therefor this is much easier on a machine like this that has Y-axis as well.(That can't change at the same time but still could be offset from the centerline)
Another thing is that you can use the tangential extension, but only about half the tool diameter.(So the radius.)
Here is how I would do it. Take a smaller tool and do 4 passes. Isn't the fastest way I know, but it makes the best part.
Also I didn't do that in the part but you can use the linear lead-in to make sure the tool doesn't hit the stock when it plunges to depth.
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
scottmoyse wrote:
I had to leave a bit of radial stock on Swarf 1 because it was cutting into the model, when Swarf 2 wasn't (not sure why, maybe there is a difference between the faces due to the swept cut in the model?)The face needs to be parallel to the x axis and coincident with the Z axis as all times for 4th axis substitution to work.
This is true 4-axis Scott.(That is in the multi-axis operations.)
Therefor this is much easier on a machine like this that has Y-axis as well.(That can't change at the same time but still could be offset from the centerline)
Another thing is that you can use the tangential extension, but only about half the tool diameter.(So the radius.)
Here is how I would do it. Take a smaller tool and do 4 passes. Isn't the fastest way I know, but it makes the best part.
Also I didn't do that in the part but you can use the linear lead-in to make sure the tool doesn't hit the stock when it plunges to depth.
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
I knew the machine was true 4th axis. I just programmed it with 4th axis sub.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
I knew the machine was true 4th axis. I just programmed it with 4th axis sub.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
scottmoyse wrote:
I knew the machine was true 4th axis. I just programmed it with 4th axis sub.
No you programmed it with true 4-axis that was my point. 😉
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
scottmoyse wrote:
I knew the machine was true 4th axis. I just programmed it with 4th axis sub.
No you programmed it with true 4-axis that was my point. 😉
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
damn it... I need to go to bed. I was just coming back to post my mistake.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
damn it... I need to go to bed. I was just coming back to post my mistake.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
scottmoyse wrote:
damn it... I need to go to bed. I was just coming back to post my mistake.
Goodnight Scott 😉
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
scottmoyse wrote:
damn it... I need to go to bed. I was just coming back to post my mistake.
Goodnight Scott 😉
Laurens Wijnschenk
3DTechDraw
AutoDesk CAM user & Post editor.
René for Legend.
I messed about with the tangential extension, but I didn't like that it left the flat on the end. I like your solution of using the small tool and combining it with the flow.
The same thing is happening in the stock simulation though, one side there is a slight amount of stock left (20 steps, 0.01mm comparision step), but on the other side its bang on (in mine it was the other way around).
It always worries me see how rough looking that stock simulation is. I assume that in reality (the toolpath looks smooth, so its a relatively safe assumption), then it is smooth. It's just the faceting of the stl in the simulation which is rough.
The same thing is happening in the stock simulation though, one side there is a slight amount of stock left (20 steps, 0.01mm comparision step), but on the other side its bang on (in mine it was the other way around).
It always worries me see how rough looking that stock simulation is. I assume that in reality (the toolpath looks smooth, so its a relatively safe assumption), then it is smooth. It's just the faceting of the stl in the simulation which is rough.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
I messed about with the tangential extension, but I didn't like that it left the flat on the end. I like your solution of using the small tool and combining it with the flow.
The same thing is happening in the stock simulation though, one side there is a slight amount of stock left (20 steps, 0.01mm comparision step), but on the other side its bang on (in mine it was the other way around).
It always worries me see how rough looking that stock simulation is. I assume that in reality (the toolpath looks smooth, so its a relatively safe assumption), then it is smooth. It's just the faceting of the stl in the simulation which is rough.
The same thing is happening in the stock simulation though, one side there is a slight amount of stock left (20 steps, 0.01mm comparision step), but on the other side its bang on (in mine it was the other way around).
It always worries me see how rough looking that stock simulation is. I assume that in reality (the toolpath looks smooth, so its a relatively safe assumption), then it is smooth. It's just the faceting of the stl in the simulation which is rough.
Scott Moyse
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.
RevOps Strategy Manager at Toolpath. New Zealand based.
Co-founder of the Grumpy Sloth full aluminium billet mechanical keyboard project
Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
