PowerMill Forum

Welcome to Autodesk’s PowerMill Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular PowerMill topics.

Turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.
Translate

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

Message 1 of 6

Anonymous

2859 Views, 5 Replies

05-05-2020
11:57 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report

05-05-2020
11:57 PM

I have a question about Powermill concerning the calculations of cusp heights with ball milling tools.

It seems to be using a different formula than standard when calulating cusps, and I'm wondering why that is.

A normal formula for calculating cusp heights would be:

s = sidestep / stepover

If you input* d = 10* and* s = 10* you would get a* c = radius,* that makes sense (*10/2 = 5 = radius)*. This is not the result you get in Powermill.

It's comes out as 8,535534*,* which is.. impossible? You can't get a cusp height that is higher than the radius of the tool, it would technically be infinite?

If you put* s = 1* on the same* d = 10* tool a normal formula would produce a* c*-value of__ 0.0250...__

Where as if you enter sidestep =* 1* in Powermill you'll be presented with a cusp height of __0,0502...__

I did some testing of trial and error to see if I could match the caculations that Powermill uses and I've figured out how it calculated cusp heights with values of* 0 < s < r* ,* r* being* d/2* and* s* being the sidestep used. This is what I believe is being used to calculate cusp heights in Powermill:

s = sidestep / stepover

Using this formula I'm able to produce the same results as Powermill as long as *0 < s < r* :

Powermill Formula (?):

Normal Formula:

If you manually set the sidestep and don't care about the 'calculated value' of the cusp this isn't a problem. However if you want to calculate sidestep based on cusp height (which is something Powermill supports), then you'll get an incorrect value:

Powermill Formula (?):

Normal Formula:

Why does Powermill calculate this way? Is this the formula that Powermill uses?

Solved! Go to Solution.

5 REPLIES 5

Message 2 of 6

05-07-2020
04:53 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report

05-07-2020
04:53 AM

That was a whole lot of math that I did not double check you on, but I will say your correct, Powermill does not calculate the cusp correctly. A very simple example of this are the corner toolpaths, make a multipencil toolpath with a cusp of .0001, then make an along corner with the same cusp. You will get two drastically different stepovers, and this should not be. A cusp is a height of remaining material, regardless of tool diameter OR toolpath strategy. It would seem we are the only 2 guys on planet earth to have a gripe about this, because this has been the behavior since day one.

Message 3 of 6

05-07-2020
06:00 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report

05-07-2020
06:00 AM

This was just my example concerning ball nosed mills. If you really want to boggle your mind over something concerning the cusp-calculation;

Use "Offset F__lat__ Finishing" (instead of the "3D Offset Finishing" I used in OP) , you'll get the same results concerning ball nosed mills as I concluded in my calculations, however what really throws me off with all this is that you'll still get cusp-heights in Powermill using an end mill.. And we're not talking miniscule levels we're talking full on millimeters.

10mm End Mill with a sidestep of 2mm apperantly gives you a cusp height of 1,414mm.. based on what?! Where would the cusps even be?! A flat mill giving cusps of the same factor as the diameter on a flat surface? You learn something every day.

Message 5 of 6

05-12-2020
08:49 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report

05-12-2020
08:49 AM

@Anonymous

This issue is a question for me too. Please may you update it with your new info? Thanks in advance.

Message 6 of 6

05-13-2020
03:56 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report

05-13-2020
03:56 AM

Of course Jaanyaar, I will update you on the issue. Was not my intention to be cryptic about it.

Powermill uses a formula with more variables, presumably to give a more accurate representation of real usage.

This formula is thusly understandable confidencial so I've not inquired further about the nature of it. Basically it tries to compensate for an (average abstract) surface angle.

A flat surface, which has a normal cusp height formula

An angled surface produces another cusp height.

I've requested an update for milling strategies focused on flat finishing to **not** include this abstract angle compensation to provide more accurate cusp height calculations. I have faith that now that this issue has been highlighted it will be adjusted in a future update.

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.