Should I trust simulation results?

[Anonymous]

OK I would attach the file but it is to big. What I am doing is cutting a 3D part with 3D Adaptive then Horizontal then Scallop. I have the settings as fine as I can as far as I know on the Scallop cut but still I don't get accurate material removal and there is faceting going down into the cavities and judging by the excess material also radially. My experience in the past with other programs tells me the faceting is for real so before I cut this I need to know what is the consensus here regarding this. I can't post about this if it is not right and I don't want to cut this at this time if this is going to be the result.

 

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Dave Ault wrote:

OK I would attach the file but it is to big. What I am doing is cutting a 3D part with 3D Adaptive then Horizontal then Scallop. I have the settings as fine as I can as far as I know on the Scallop cut but still I don't get accurate material removal and there is faceting going down into the cavities and judging by the excess material also radially. My experience in the past with other programs tells me the faceting is for real so before I cut this I need to know what is the consensus here regarding this. I can't post about this if it is not right and I don't want to cut this at this time if this is going to be the result.

I would cut it myself. Since the bigger and harder the operations the less accurate the simulation becomes. This is on purpose to have it simulate in minutes/seconds instead of hours/years.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Lauren. My apprehension comes from past bad results from CAMWorks where the faceting going into cavities did show up in the cut. The metallic "material" setting looks so similar to the one in CW4SE that I assumed the same graphics program drove them both.

[lenny_1962]

Dave Ault wrote:
Thanks Lauren. My apprehension comes from past bad results from CAMWorks where the faceting going into cavities did show up in the cut. The metallic "material" setting looks so similar to the one in CW4SE that I assumed the same graphics program drove them both.

it's more of a stl graphic to show the results.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Dave Ault wrote:
Thanks Lauren. My apprehension comes from past bad results from CAMWorks where the faceting going into cavities did show up in the cut. The metallic "material" setting looks so similar to the one in CW4SE that I assumed the same graphics program drove them both.

It should look much better in a higher quality setting.

[kb9ydn]

I have a dollar that says the faceting is real.  I made some 3D parts in Fusion awhile back that showed faceting in the simulation and it ended up on the parts.  I even posted about it, but never did figure out why Fusion was generating the faceting.  If I remember right it was with a parallel operation.

C|

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

cygnus x1 wrote:
I have a dollar that says the faceting is real.  I made some 3D parts in Fusion awhile back that showed faceting in the simulation and it ended up on the parts.  I even posted about it, but never did figure out why Fusion was generating the faceting.  If I remember right it was with a parallel operation. C|

Better try the higher quality simulation than.
I never have seen such faceting in HSMWorks on the machine only in simulation.
If the faceting is real the 3D operations are useless in Inventor HSM.

[Greg_Haisley]

FYI - The model is translated into a STL file in the background and toolpaths are applied to this model. This is the way all CAM systems generate 3D multi-surface tool paths. As you guys know the tighter the tolerance the better the finish. Will it totally get rid of the STL triangles probably not. If the tool path takes advantage of using circular interpolation in all 3 planes you have a better chance of achieving a better part finish without the STL triangulation model surface.

[kb9ydn]

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:
Better try the higher quality simulation than. I never have seen such faceting in HSMWorks on the machine only in simulation. If the faceting is real the 3D operations are useless in Inventor HSM.

I agree, the 3D operations are useless if they produce faceting.  And I was using the higher quality simulation.

See here:

https://camforum.autodesk.com/index.php?topic=6037.0


C|

[Rob_Lockwood]

cygnus x1 wrote:

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote: Better try the higher quality simulation than. I never have seen such faceting in HSMWorks on the machine only in simulation. If the faceting is real the 3D operations are useless in Inventor HSM. I agree, the 3D operations are useless if they produce faceting.  And I was using the higher quality simulation. See here: https://camforum.autodesk.com/index.php?topic=6037.0 C|

What are some of the basic default settings for these operations? surface triangulation tolerance, etc? Maybe some default is just wildly bad?

FWIW, HSMWorks simulation produces similar results in sim, but not in posted code. Also, the compare stock remaining option seems to still calculate properly, and wouldn't display remaining stock like in the screen cap shown.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Rob Lockwood wrote:

cygnus x1 wrote: Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote: Better try the higher quality simulation than. I never have seen such faceting in HSMWorks on the machine only in simulation. If the faceting is real the 3D operations are useless in Inventor HSM. I agree, the 3D operations are useless if they produce faceting.  And I was using the higher quality simulation. See here: https://camforum.autodesk.com/index.php?topic=6037.0 C| What are some of the basic default settings for these operations? surface triangulation tolerance, etc? Maybe some default is just wildly bad? FWIW, HSMWorks simulation produces similar results in sim, but not in posted code. Also, the compare stock remaining option seems to still calculate properly, and wouldn't display remaining stock like in the screen cap shown.

Point is that they are different and I believe that the calculation of this compare stock in Inventor actually uses the sim results.

[kb9ydn]

Rob Lockwood wrote:
What are some of the basic default settings for these operations? surface triangulation tolerance, etc? Maybe some default is just wildly bad?

In my case:
Surface triangulation = 0.0001"
Tolerance = 0.0002"
Chaining tolerance = 0.0004"
Contour linearization = 0.0001"


And here's a screenshot of my part with the better simulation.  The faceting you see on the screen showed up exactly the same way on the part.

If there's a setting I'm missing I would certainly like to know what it is.  But my experience so far has been that the simulation is spot on while the 3D tool paths are not always so great (in Fusion that is).

And sorry to the OP for the sort of thread hijack.

C|