Surfacing with this tool?

[scottmoyse]

Hey guys,

Does anyone know of a CAM package that can generate an accurate 3D surface toolpath using this kind of tool?

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

scottmoyse wrote:
Hey guys, Does anyone know of a CAM package that can generate an accurate 3D surface toolpath using this kind of tool?

Hypermill I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkvVUHV-8MA

[scottmoyse]

Yup. That's very close.

[Anonymous]

The most simple tools are grinded.

Most incredible is the Numroto software package for machining special tools: http://www.num.com/web/num.nsf/id/3d-simulation-en

[scottmoyse]

Daniel Pegas wrote:
The most simple tools are grinded. Most incredible is the Numroto software package for machining special tools: http://www.num.com/web/num.nsf/id/3d-simulation-en

I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't asking about software that will allow the user to program the toolpaths to grind the tool, but rather use the tool itself. In any case, that's interesting information you've supplied.

[Steinwerks]

If I'm not mistaken that's a large radius small diameter two flute end mill, yes? No double radius or form diameter specs?

[scottmoyse]

N. Stein wrote:
If I'm not mistaken that's a large radius small diameter two flute end mill, yes? No double radius or form diameter specs?

If I understand you correctly yes... There's a G0 surface transition condition between the radius on the end of the tool and the side of the tool. It's a hard edge. I don't think HSM (and most other CAM systems) can allow for that when calculating surfacing toolpaths.

[Anonymous]

scottmoyse wrote:

Daniel Pegas wrote: The most simple tools are grinded. Most incredible is the Numroto software package for machining special tools: http://www.num.com/web/num.nsf/id/3d-simulation-en I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't asking about software that will allow the user to program the toolpaths to grind the tool, but rather use the tool itself. In any case, that's interesting information you've supplied.

Ahhh, ok! barrel tools, and other like this one.
Isn't it the same as using a a ball mill tool, with thinner shank and narrower Slope angle?

[scottmoyse]

Daniel Pegas wrote:
Isn't it the same as using a a ball mill tool, with thinner shank and narrower Slope angle?

No because all the HSM tool definitions maintain tangency with the tip radius.

[Rob_Lockwood]

AFAIK, hypermill and NX are two, but i've not actually tested in either yet. I feel like hypermill apps guy actually showed me this, but I don't remember anymore.

[mwhitten123]

If it's just a large radius at the end of the tool, Mastercam can do this as long as it's only using the radius or just side milling with the periphery. You can create a custom tool shape and calculate to a ball shape. The custom tool will be used for backplot(simulate) and verify(solid simulate) and the specified ball mill will be used for the toolpath calcs. This at least makes for a very accurate verify.

I am hoping that HSM can do the above soon. Basically, we need to be able to define a custom tool shape and calc to a standard shape.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Mike Whitten wrote:
I am hoping that HSM can do the above soon. Basically, we need to be able to define a custom tool shape and calc to a standard shape.

That is what happens with the form tools in HSMWorks. It calculates as if it was a flat endmill.
I would just say that at least every inserted mill in the Kennametal, Iscar and Sandvik catalog should be supported out of the box. These kinds of solid carbide tools would be nice and neccesarry in the future. But the form mill with choosing the kind of tool it should base the calculations on is a good one since a flat end mill will not work in many cases.

[Anonymous]

NX yes but with more 5 axis mills available form tools are becoming old school.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

ericw4 wrote:
NX yes but with more 5 axis mills available form tools are becoming old school.

Actually they are reinvented for 5-axis. Like the barrel tools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0-2ChNKM_w
https://youtu.be/bfAXFGGJuEc?t=2m25s

[Anonymous]

Different type of form tool. Side vs bottom. Bottom radius tools have the same issue as ball nose tools. No surface feed at the tip. Better to use a mill with a rad and tilt into the cut. Barrel radius tools are great though as the allow the axial step down to be greater while still keeping the cusp between passes low. Nothing new though. Did that 10 years ago. Also the impeller in the vidio is pretty tame.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

ericw4 wrote:
Also the impeller in the vidio is pretty tame.

True, but on the other hand make it with Fusion 360. I mean there is a lot of work that needs to be done before that is possible in a way that you can actually make a buck.

ericw4 wrote:
Different type of form tool. Side vs bottom. Bottom radius tools have the same issue as ball nose tools. No surface feed at the tip. Better to use a mill with a rad and tilt into the cut. Barrel radius tools are great though as the allow the axial step down to be greater while still keeping the cusp between passes low.

Well your said form tools are becoming old school, well some types are, some aren't.
And high feed cutters are getting more used which means it would be really nice to have them simulated and programmed correctly.

[scottmoyse]

Mike Whitten wrote:
If it's just a large radius at the end of the tool,

No I would want the toolpath to be able to transition the cutting from the tip to the side where needed. However, like Laurens said, the approach Mastercam is taking would help, since we can't assign a standard tool profile to use for the calculation. So you raise a valid point, but it's not what I was after.

I don't consider the geometry of that tool to be complex, so it's not like the kernel team have to support all custom geometry, just all the modern standard profiles. Carbide or insert.

The main reason I started this thread was to find out how many other systems can handle it properly. NX & Hypermill seem to be the only ones so far. Mastercam's solution is a compromised workaround.

Cheers guys

[mwhitten123]

Hello Scott,

I fully agree with your comments - The main point is that we need improvements in Custom Shaped and "non-standard" types of tool support. If we can at least Solid Simulate(verify) to a custom shaped tool, we would be much further ahead than where we are now.

[scottmoyse]

Mike Whitten wrote:
If we can at least Solid Simulate(verify) to a custom shaped tool, we would be much further ahead than where we are now.

Well we can do that now. But I suspect you mean alongside specifying a standard tool to use for the calculation.

[mwhitten123]

But I suspect you mean alongside specifying a standard tool to use for the calculation

oh...Yes, that is what I mean