cave

[Dylan]

Good morning.

today I cut a very large detail with different dowel seats (cave from 50x30 deep 10 with rays of 3.5 in the corners).

Let's lose the roughing.

for finishing is a disaster. There is no 3d strategy that can finish a pocket!

1) do not tell me use q.sgross. That would make a thousand jumps. with little overmetal left by the pref could rub badly. does not make ordered movements and the finish would look bad. Moreover, having much of the inclined quarries, it would force me to create multi-axis crudes with a file weighting, times etc.
less traditional sgross. They would also need the residual crude to eliminate the past of emptying terrace.

2) do not tell me use the finishes x levels. If by limit angle the bottom will rub it like it's to rub with a spherical and anyway it gives bad results.

3) do not tell me use 2.5 axles. It's the only system to make beautiful finishes. the problem that you give and restore the model sooner or later you miss it... :-I'm doing this so far, and sometimes I make some holes... 2 programs. one for the walls and one for the bottom for each quarry.

How are you doing? (to do a nice job, comfortably and without risking venting everything with the 2.5x? ).

possible that no one has thought of a 3d strategy (that cut surfaces and not curves in short) finish for the quarries? a strategy made to work walls at 90° in contouring and pave the bottom maybe with a ramp entry? But don't we have a mold cam? Amazing. .

as incredible that in 2.5 axes there is no instrument that calculates the resumption of a corner given the diameter of the previous cut used (an algorithm of a disarming banality, among other things) ... something that cams well + ladder and economic do quietly. . .

dylan

 

[monster]

I'm a little weird told by you

I usually use finishq for levels and limit angle used with bullocks, I do not have
never had problems and sincerely I do not see disastrous result
I usually also use the pocket profile giving as internal value and offset -0.1

I repeat depends on what you want to get, I do the seat do the brake so
with good results

You know toptron has been developed by the moldists. I think of you as a lot of blasphemies I throw behind these "stampists" :angry:

Hi.

 

[Dylan]

therefore.

programming a torch instead of a flat something gets. Basically, the path is unorganized, and anyway the attack on the bottom finish pass is not well radiated.

You make a 50mm deep quarry with the d6 and you'll see that when you spy on the bottom, it sucks. Then it's useless to turn around. it would serve a strategy that individuals the flat areas (yes) and that therefore the cutters as a level and not as a 3d surface and that brake the walls (maybe spiraling down on the contour so as not to leave signs of attack/discrew).

As I do the quarries come a show but the fight is so much and the risk as well.
Unfortunately, I can't do anything. I'm a rimpicoglioni and I like things done well.

dylan

 

[cimaguy]

Mah!

personally I never had any problems in the milling of quarries like this but

You must always consider case by case.

Recently my "frestors" prefer (also given the high protrusion of

tools) finish the walls in "axial painting" instead of for z levels

I have to say that quality is very good.

...but you can post the file....

 

[monster]

programming a torch instead of a flat something gets. Basically, the path is unorganized, and anyway the attack on the bottom finish pass is not well radiated.

at the time with the plane I can understand, but the torica vien well indeed...I have never had problems if in the hypothesis you have a dowel with beamed walls bottom to edge and normal tile plan to the milled axis. I usually use the finishingq strategy with limit below and then finish horizontal plane and here nothing
dangerous to me vien well also using the upper profile of the towel surfaces as limit zone

if after we have a dowel where the bottom is not normal to the milled axis for general reasons and is radiated both vertically and background then I use a spherical frieze using a strategy for levels with finishing of the bottom in s-finit if we just do not want to use q for horizontal levels and planes

usually to do these procedures you should stay in pc from morning to evening and plan calmly everything that nowadays is not possible
then more if you want to do it first with 2.5assi becomes tragic and avoid making chapels!!! I usually use it if I have a basic profile and the same shape for all sides

then as you say you would need a strategy for the flat areas... well, since you use it maybe as I make limits or areas you will see that well-established routes

We do a file with different types of stategy and see what it can do to our case...:biggrin:

hi mago...:biggrin:

 

[Dylan]

then as you say you would need a strategy for the flat areas... well, since you use it maybe as I make limits or areas you will see that well-established routes

We do a file with different types of stategy and see what it can do to our case...:biggrin:

hi mago...:biggrin:

Let's start from the bottom. Let's succumb to the wizard:wink: .
I would like to pay tribute to the "finish-q horizontal areas" strategy. the study probably carried out it at the Oktoberfest in front of a lot of beer and many pussies .. but you can make a strategy that serves to fresare the flat zones precisely by attacking the tool in that way!?? on use a flat and instead, remove 0.1 mm tolgo 1mm in prefinition or attack with a minimum radius 40 or risk a bandage of the tool. One way or another, the finish will be marked.
they then remedied in 8.5 with the finishing floors inside the qsgross much smarter and functional (which I for other I do not have.. I use v8...) although I do not know if it works without rough but I think not..

when I have time maybe a file place. Bye
dylan

 

[monster]

I would like to pay tribute to the "finish-q horizontal areas" strategy. probably the study carried out at the Oktoberfest in front of a lot of beer and many pussies

Actually, you're right, I did a file, and I see that you don't actually get a good entrance, even if you have a cutter under...

Listen, I did a test of this kind.

1 grinding with offset 0.5
2 q finish with advanced offest 0 in wall and 0.6 bottom then the cutter does not plant
3 risgrossatura with same fresa and offest advanced to zero ...(always that toptron remembers the scrap left)

 

[Dylan]

Nooo. Cheese halo..
We're not here. .

then let the crude be lost. I have 40-50 quarries all not on the axis z. the model has 20,000 entities and measures 3000x1500x350.
I should have 50 multi-axis crudes for an estimated weight of the file of some gb .

excluding sgoss procedures.

Now I do a beautiful job with the 2.5x but I have to do 2 procedures for quarry (only for the finit) by inserting all values in manual with a very high risk of collision.

If I had a strategy like myself, instead of 80-100 procedures, it would be enough for 40-50, among other things, without risk of planting:-/

No?

It's also true that if I were a billionaire, I wouldn't be in the office, but to groovy with different potatoes that pay attention.

dylan

 

[foreight]

I would like to pay tribute to the "finish-q horizontal areas" strategy. the study probably carried out it at the Oktoberfest in front of a lot of beer and many pussies .. but you can make a strategy that serves to fresare the flat zones precisely by attacking the tool in that way!?? on use a flat and instead, remove 0.1 mm tolgo 1mm in prefinition or attack with a minimum radius 40 or risk a bandage of the tool. .

Perhaps it is not the most elegant way to solve the problem, but if after calculating the "finish-q horizontal areas" change the type of attack with the movement editor you can choose from various types of attacks including in ramp.

 

[monster]

but if after calculating the "finish-q horizontal areas" change the type of attack with the movement editor you can choose from various types of attacks including in ramp.

tell me how to do I did not succeed! In practice, where is the command in the rig editor to get the tool into the ramp? ?

Hi.

 

[stinit]

Perhaps it is not the most elegant way to solve the problem, but if after calculating the "finish-q horizontal areas" change the type of attack with the movement editor you can choose from various types of attacks including in ramp.

it is very dangerous...I would not use the editor of the movements...I tried + of once and I saw him calculate the new movements crossing areas of the piece ...and there is little to do... :confused

I made it present both to our dealer and to technicians who develop the program...I asked him if it was possible to replace that cursed editor with a new function that allows me to have the possibility to modify attacks and ramps after the calculation of the tool pre-course as it does for example powermill of delcam... without obvious that they generate movements that go to "to collide" the machine with the piece...

We'll see. . .

 

[monster]

it is very dangerous...I would not use the editor of the movements...I tried + of once and I saw him calculate the new movements crossing areas of the piece...and there is little to do. .

*********...(without offense). You know, I'm gonna touch my face.

I made it present both to our dealer and to technicians who develop the program...I asked him if it was possible to replace that cursed editor with a new function that allows me to have the possibility to modify attacks and ramps after the calculation of the tool pre-course as it does for example powermill of delcam... without obvious that they generate movements that go to "to collide" the machine with the piece...

We'll see. . .

That's the usual story for years...
ahhhh that mocks....:bekle:

 

[foreight]

tell me how to do I did not succeed! In practice, where is the command in the rig editor to get the tool into the ramp? ?

Hi.

enter the editor and choose connect, instead of gaps you put attacks and you can with a window select all attacks of a procedure or only those that interest you; after confirming you appear a mask with various options including the choice of the attack type (for the various attack parameters you have to click the big arrow down).
After changing the attack you should, always within the editor movements, make a heel control with the appropriate function.
The movement editor is a very powerful but equally dangerous command. . .man warned :wink:

 

[cicciomarmitta]

Hello everyone, the discussion is interesting.
I can't use the movement editor at all.
once chosen attacks how do I select the attack points so as to create an attack ramp?
any new route I follow with the navigation command?
Thank you.

 

[monster]

The movement editor is a very powerful but equally dangerous command. . . notified man

I don't care anymore...

 

[foreight]

once chosen attacks how do I select the attack points so as to create an attack ramp?

make a simple selection by window with the mouse or control+t to select all attacks of the p.u. that you are editing

any new route I follow with the navigation command?

Of course, what you get is a normal tool path.

 

[foreight]

I don't care anymore...

I didn't want to scare you, but only to reiterate that if you use the editor movements, the changes are half dependent on the program and the other half is managed by the user; in any case you can use all verification tools to control the result.
I often use it with excellent results, even to cut portions of recovery p.u. without having to create containment contours or control surfaces, then it also depends on the complexity of the geometry of the pieces you need to mill.

 

[Dylan]

I also use the editor (not very often) to eliminate some areas to avoid refractive contours. .

I believe that this tool is valid and indispensable to better refine any tool paths to use on machining centers or in any case production machines that make pieces in series. in that case it is necessary to optimize the path so as to "limate" every slight loss of time.. see milling of air zones, for example. .

dylan

 

[stinit]

I also use the editor (not very often) to eliminate some areas to avoid refractive contours. .

I believe that this tool is valid and indispensable to better refine any tool paths to use on machining centers or in any case production machines that make pieces in series. in that case it is necessary to optimize the path so as to "limate" every slight loss of time.. see milling of air zones, for example. .

dylan

Have you ever seen the powermill function to handle movements? ...if you see that the toptron editor kicks him. .

 

[Dylan]

I never had a chance.. But I guess it's powerful.
a my supplier occasionally passes me some routes made with pmills and are spectacular. Like. imagine a silhouette "punzone". then flat area over-races-paretes that descend. pmill has a "magic" strategy in my opinion. milled the planar area concentricly (from inside to outside) and then descend from the walls by levels. the route is very neat (no svincoli,rapids or various craps), begins there and ends the spectacular. . if I remember well it is called "finishing something optimized".

then if we talk about editor have you ever seen worknc? when you trim a video path to the coward with the mouse it is not limited to connecting the gaps with dangerous attacks camped there, but even reverses the sense of past interrupted to exit with a perfect path. . .

dylan