Holder Definitions for Standard Surface toolpaths

[CamMan1]

Anyone else out there fed up with not having holder definition for standard surface toolpaths? I was told it would be in X5 and then again in X6. Well from what I have heard it is not in X6. Will Mastercam eventually add this functionality or will they try to sway everyone to use the new HST? The High Speed Toolpaths are fine for certain situations and if you have unlimited control memory. For those of us who just want to use a simple flowline or parallel path and are limited on control memory do we have to continue to suffer?

[gms1]

That's really disappointing if they didn't include holders for the good surface toolpaths in X6. Was really hoping to finally get that functionality for my Active Reports

[CamMan1]

Come On!!! You telling me that out of all the people that looked at this post no one has a complaint. I myself am tired of the standard surface toolpaths having the old style tab pages. They need to be treestyle like the rest with the ability to select a freaking toolholder. Every time I open one of the standard surface toolpaths operations it pops up in a different place on the screen. That is annoying as H#!!. I waste so much time having to verify toolholders that it's ridiculous. Well I guess I must be the only one still using the standard surface toolpaths. Anybody can speak up or forever hold your peace.

[Newbeeee™]

I still use the old flowline path. It still is a very good and quick path for angled faces etc.

But that's it for me. I'm of the new age

[Joe788]

I like using the old paths for certain things too. We make production parts that have 3D milling work. It's not like a mold where it gets polished and nobody cares, so I like the control I can get with the old paths. I don't really care if they give them the tree or not, but it would be nice to have the holder definitions.

[Guest]

Come On!!! You telling me that out of all the people that looked at this post no one has a complaint.

 

Is that all you're looking for is someone else to complain?

 

Is your concern legit? Yes it is

 

I don't believe that functionality can come until the Legacy paths are migrated to the new "tree" format.

I honestly don't know when that is scheduled to happen. I will admit, I am surprised myself that it has not as of yet.

[CamMan1]

Is that all you're looking for is some else to complain?

 

Is your concern legit? Yes it is

 

I don't believe that functionality can come until the Legacy paths are migrated to the new "tree" format.

I honestly don't know when that is scheduled to happen. I will admit, I am surprised myself that it has not as of yet.

 

I am looking for someone to complain??!! Isn't that how you get things fixed. You get enough concerned people complaining to CNC and maybe they might eventually do something about it. Isn't that what an enhancement request is? I have been told by my reseller and others from CNC that it would be in the last couple of releases. And JParis don't take this the wrong way. I love Mastercam. I have fought with our management to keep it. It's pretty hard though when almost all the competition has holders for all their toolpaths and they see me having to do the extra work to verify tool holder clearances.

[Guest]

I feel your pain, I've been there before having to fight that fight.

 

As I said, your concern is legit.

 

The only thing you can do now is use custom tools and draw your holder as part of the tool.

 

I know this isn't what you want but at this point, it's one way to get it.

 

This is one of the reasons I "try" to use the new paths as much as I can. I will concede though, in all circumstances they are not the best solution.

 

The best solution is to have the holders defined.

[CamMan1]

Yes the only solution at this time is to grin and bear it. I have been using a solution that David Colin came up with. Hopefully I can request him to update it for X6. I know that the new high speed paths will work but they take extra work to get them to work properly and they generate a lot more code. At our shop we do all aircraft work and a lot of it on 4 Axis. We have older machines with limited memory. I run in to a lot of instances were I am at an extreme angle trying to machine one simple surface that I can get with a simple flowline path were I need to run the shortest tool extension as possible and watch for holder clearance. This simple surface takes nothing but selecting the surface and manipulating the flowline control where with HST raster the surface has to have the correct containment exactly the right shape and a lot more parameters set. A 30 second toolpath now turns into a 30 minute toolpath which generates a lot of unnecessary code. Also a lot of the work, and I mean a lot, we do requires undercuts using custom lollipops, sidemillers and dovetails. Form what I know none of the HST paths support this type of cutting. And as far as drawing the holder as part of the tool I haven't had good luck. Especially doing undercuts. Mastercam looks at the holder as being actually part of the tool. I guess I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

[Joe788]

Yes the only solution at this time is to grin and bear it. I have been using a solution that David Colin came up with. Hopefully I can request him to update it for X6. I know that the new high speed paths will work but they take extra work to get them to work properly and they generate a lot more code. At our shop we do all aircraft work and a lot of it on 4 Axis. We have older machines with limited memory. I run in to a lot of instances were I am at an extreme angle trying to machine one simple surface that I can get with a simple flowline path were I need to run the shortest tool extension as possible and watch for holder clearance. This simple surface takes nothing but selecting the surface and manipulating the flowline control where with HST raster the surface has to have the correct containment exactly the right shape and a lot more parameters set. A 30 second toolpath now turns into a 30 minute toolpath which generates a lot of unnecessary code. I guess I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

 

Quick and dirty solution is to throw a high speed path on the surface you're going to cut with the legacy path. Don't spend a lot of time fine tuning the parameters, just make sure the HST path covers all of the area your flowline path is going to cover. Verify it with the HST holder definitions. If it clears, your flowline path is gonna clear. Delete the HST path and go on your merry way.

[uncle_dolan]

Quick and dirty solution is to throw a high speed path on the surface you're going to cut with the legacy path. Don't spend a lot of time fine tuning the parameters, just make sure the HST path covers all of the area your flowline path is going to cover. Verify it with the HST holder definitions. If it clears, your flowline path is gonna clear. Delete the HST path and go on your merry way.

 

+1

 

This makes a lot of sense to me! I didn't even consider it and have been struggling with the holders issue for a while! Thanks Joe!

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

Draw your tool as the tool and holder together using shank diameter as holder diameter

Quick and fast

Use it for 15 years

Gives you all you need to check in backplot and verify

[Chris In-House Solutions]

What about using the checkholder.dll in the chooks folder. Here you can choose the holder you are using from the holders library.

 

This will tell you if the tool and holder clears your surfaces... and if it doesnt you can modify the tool from within this chook.

[David Colin]

Didn't know this check holder chook. Does it exist in X3?

 

For verify/backplot old style operations, anyone can still use my tool

[Bob W.]

I really wish they would revamp the tool manager so the tool holders could be assigned in the tool libraries. I will be taking delivery of a horizontal mill in a few weeks and I plan to have 80 standard tools loaded in the machine at all times. The holders will never change and it would be great if I could set up Mastercam to reflect that. I think taking care of the holders at the library level is the best way to go.

 

I also really like using the old surface toolpaths because of the level of control they give the programmer. Sometimes it is much quicker to throw down a flowline, contour, parallel, or radial toolpath to take care of a single surfaced feature than to define all of the masking surfaces, containment boundaries, and other items to get the HST running well.

[CamMan1]

What about using the checkholder.dll in the chooks folder. Here you can choose the holder you are using from the holders library.

 

This will tell you if the tool and holder clears your surfaces... and if it doesnt you can modify the tool from within this chook.

 

 

Yes this C-hook does work but it only works well for single plane paths. Have tried it on Horizontal programs with multiple angles several times and have got burned. It only really looks at the stock in 2D. Best solution for the time being is David Colin's Holder utility

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

Draw your tool as the tool and holder together using shank diameter as holder diameter

Quick and fast

Use it for 15 years

Gives you all you need to check in backplot and verify

[CamMan1]

Teh Bear that might work fine if I used tool holders that were flat on the bottom like you are showing. I have done this for years with 2d work.Problem is when you are down in a cavity at a 45 degree angle with a tapered holder 8 inches long that is 1.00 diameter at the top and .625 at the bottom your method will not work. I do work like this on a daily basis. Most of the time I just need to drive one surface with 2 to 4 check surfaces to get the job done. And all that is required for that is a standard parallel or flowline surface path. That is where I need the holder definition.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

Most of the time I just need to drive one surface with 2 to 4 check surfaces to get the job done. And all that is required for that is a standard parallel or flowline surface path. That is where I need the holder definition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also draw custom holders and use them instead of the default one.

But most of times as a first step of checking I only draw profile of tool and holder together and in appropriate tplane and gview

I use xform-drag of the profile agaist my surfaces

Fast and dirty and in some cases well enough

[Bob W.]

Draw your tool as the tool and holder together using shank diameter as holder diameter

Quick and fast

 

I have done this in a pinch but it I often need accurate shank definitions such as a 1/16" end mill with a .125" shank and I need to make sure I am not gouging the work with the tool shank. Also, reduced shank tools, etc... With 5-axis programs I need the shank and holder definitions to be accurate to make sure there aren't crashes or gouges.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

I have done this in a pinch but it I often need accurate shank definitions such as a 1/16" end mill with a .125" shank and I need to make sure I am not gouging the work with the tool shank. Also, reduced shank tools, etc... With 5-axis programs I need the shank and holder definitions to be accurate to make sure there aren't crashes or gouges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

iN MULTIAXES you can use holder options

We were talking about old stile operations like surface flowline where you can not draw holder

[Joe788]

Bob, what HMC did you end up deciding on?

[CamMan1]

I have done this in a pinch but it I often need accurate shank definitions such as a 1/16" end mill with a .125" shank and I need to make sure I am not gouging the work with the tool shank. Also, reduced shank tools, etc... With 5-axis programs I need the shank and holder definitions to be accurate to make sure there aren't crashes or gouges.

 

 

Well said!!

[Bob W.]

iN MULTIAXES you can use holder options

We were talking about old stile operations like surface flowline where you can not draw holder

 

Right, but the holders will not be saved in carried on in the tool library, which is what I would really like to see. When I loaded up tools for every new job I could have cared less, but as I get leaner and incorporate standard tools permanently loaded in the machine it is a feature that would save me a lot of time.

[Bob W.]

Bob, what HMC did you end up deciding on?

 

I am leaning toward the Mori NH5000 but there are a few machines I plan to go look at before making the final decision.