For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

DaveF · 2010-05-20 13:33:34

Hi Friends,

I really like the new features in version 7.0.3

Especially, the new collisions, in the workpiece window, with near misses. We can now check near miss from holder to the cut stock.

I have done some testing, and I do have an issue that I reported to CGTech, and want to see what other think about this issue.

The bottom line is, I think they need to either add another detect, for the shank, or assume the shank is the cutter. That way, you can have a near miss of 0 on shank to cut stock, and use a near miss of .03, .100, etc on the holder. I can not imagine why you would want a near miss, shank to cut stock, but, if it was separate from holder, those that need that would have it.
The problem I see is, a majority of work is "High speed machining" (HSM), a tool with flutes, and a solid shank, making multiple axial passes is the norm.

The major error checking I (and many others) want, is near miss holder to the cut stock.
This it new and wonderful.. .. but the only way to get that with the Vericut we have today, is to define cutters with no shanks.

Otherwise, checking the holders, will give a false alarm, of near miss, on shank, on all HSM passes.

I am fine with turning it on and off, as long as shanks are separated with a 4th check box

Again, I reported this, so I am only looking for feedback, as I see this as a high priority. Also, a warning to you friends are not surprised.

Now the enhancements for 7 are great, and I say kudos to the CGtech development staff. I say jump in and start getting familiar with it. Go to a VUE, cause this year, it is all about the Vericut we have TODAY.

Take care
Dave

vhubbard · 2010-05-24 14:32:27

We agree, cutter shank should not be part of Holder near miss definition. Adding the shank makes the holder near miss function useless to us.

DaveF · 2010-05-24 15:30:01

vhubbard wrote:

We agree, cutter shank should not be part of Holder near miss definition. Adding the shank makes the holder near miss function useless to us.

Mr Hubbard

Since you and I are in agreement, that should be the consensus they need to fix this one. he he he
:twisted:

And we nipped it in the bud. Thanks for backing us up
Dave

DaveF · 2010-05-24 16:44:32

For others here is a specific example

Say you have a 3 inch deep pocket, and you are going to use high speed machine methods.

So you have a .750 diameter 3.25 long
.750 flute length, and 2.500 length of solid shank, non cutting for strength.

You machine the pocket with .25 Axial step downs, a standard HDM technique.

In this new Vericut â€¦ if you set holder near miss to part, to .030, you will get near miss errors on the shank, because it considers the shank part of the holder. That makes it pretty much unusable, unless you change your Vericut cutter definition to not have a shank. but then you wont get the cutting with shank errors you DO want.

Dave

DaveF · 2010-09-02 14:43:04

Hi Friends,

Am I missing something here? Do you have a work around for this issue? Programmers I have talked to say they see this as a problem, just as I do, but I don't see any responces other than Val, that agrees with me.

Please take a few minutes, and get your head into this issue, and make a comment up or down, or ask for more info if you don't understand.

Mabey lots of folks are still on 6.
7 has some great stuff, but I see this as a problem

7.1 will be in Beta soon, so with feedback, togeather we can comunicate

Thanks
Dave

SergeV · 2010-09-02 15:21:52

DaveF wrote:

For others here is a specific example
Say you have a 3 inch deep pocket, and you are going to use high speed machine methods. So you have a .750 diameter 3.25 long flute length, and 2. 500 length of solid shank, non cutting for strength. You machine the pocket with .25 Axial step downs, a standard HDM technique. In this new Vericut â€¦ if you set holder near miss to part, to .030, you will get near miss errors on the shank, because it considers the shank part of the holder. That makes it pretty much unusable, unless you change your Vericut cutter definition to not have a shank. but then you wont get the cutting with shank errors you DO want.
Dave

Dave,

I am a bit confused on your scenario, if you have a cutter that has a 3.25 Flute Length, it is capable of cutting 3 inches deep without a problem. In VERICUT terms, the flute length is the cutting portion of the cutter, the remaining non-cutting portion is refered as the shank. If I apply this definition to your description, you have a cutter that is 3.25+2.5 = 5.75 inch long. This should not generate an error.

DaveF · 2010-09-02 15:28:05

Serge,

Thanks for pointing out my error. I edited the post. the flute length is .750
Please take a look at my edited post and see if it makes more sense.

I can send you a program, if you need to see it, but I think in your mind, it will be clear

Thanks
Dave

DaveF · 2010-09-02 15:51:13

OK check you inbox.

You will need to rename the file extension to .zip
Dave

SergeV · 2010-09-02 21:16:21

We have some Enhancement request entered for to separate the Holder near miss value from the shank near miss value. At the moment, they are both affected by the holder near miss value. Even though it is a good idea, it did not make it in the 7.1 features.

Meantime, you can define your shank diameter smaller by the near miss value to avoid errors when the shank is close to the part.

DaveF · 2010-09-02 23:36:14

Serge,

Thanks for the update, and also the workaround. (Doh ! :oops:, I should have thought of that)

This is so cool getting quick responces. I really appreciate it.
As long as I know it's in the works, I'll patiently wait for the Vericut I have tomorrow to get better.

Dave

vhubbard · 2010-09-07 17:14:26

I have thought about using the workaround, but it is a fundamental problem. We do not want to lie about our assembly definitions. Accuracy in tool definition is critical to us. It goes against everything we have been training users to do for years.

DaveF · 2010-09-07 17:23:31

I agree Val... That is why I have been a little.........pushy :mrgreen:
I think not a lot of people look at this forum.... it's a great tool.

Fear not.. I got a message Friday, that the SCR's are scheduled for implementation.
And you know, that's all I am interested.

It is one thing for there to be agrement that is should be done. Now that we know it WILL be done, we can put it out of mind, and relax until we get it.

Very Happy
Dave

DaveF · 2011-02-03 01:32:53

Thanks for fixing this guys,

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

VERICUT Users' Forum

#1 2010-05-20 13:33:34

For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#2 2010-05-24 14:32:27

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#3 2010-05-24 15:30:01

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#4 2010-05-24 16:44:32

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#5 2010-09-02 14:43:04

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#6 2010-09-02 15:21:52

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#7 2010-09-02 15:28:05

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#8 2010-09-02 15:51:13

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#9 2010-09-02 21:16:21

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#10 2010-09-02 23:36:14

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#11 2010-09-07 17:14:26

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#12 2010-09-07 17:23:31

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

#13 2011-02-03 01:32:53

Re: For collision, make shank part of cutter, or seperate shank

Board footer