MultiPocket Flank Contouring Webinar

COE would like to continue its series of Webinars to include the topic of MultiPocket Flank Contouring. This is a new function in V5R19. Patrick Touron of DS has identified this to be the next highest priority topic for aerospace machining.

The DPC and Patrick are asking the users to take a look at the new functionality in R19 and compare its features to MultiAxis Flank Contouring. You'll find it is not as robust as MAF at this time. DS is approaching this as a step towards "whole part" machining vs. "local" machining.

Please e-mail me for sample CATIA files to use.
I couldnt attach them due to their size.

We'll plan a Webinar (date TDB) similar to the Tooling Webinar held in February to review your findings and experiences.

A few of my observations already....
(take into account the possibility of operator error also)

1. No apparent method to select start and end points for each pocket. The systems does what it wants.

2. Inability to control the zone order even if zones are selected

3. In machining mode, going from "plane" to "area" seems to make no difference in toolpath

4. No tool axis guidance control yet (tanto fan, combin tanto,etc.)

Thanks for your post Mark. I will try and make the webinar. Should be interesting.

WOW that was fast.
I would like the files please
Dave

Mark

We don't have R19 here yet so I can't play yet. Looking at your graphic it looks like it machines one pocket at a time. Does this new function allow for "waterfall" type machining? On our larger panels that was the only technique that prevented warpage.

Larry,

The way I understand it, it is supposed to mill each pocket all the way down, OR,cut all pockets on the same plane, then repeat the sequence on the next successive plane. I couldnt get it to work for the latter.

I'm waiting for others to try it.

I've just had a go at this, but quickly went back to more well used methods due to several problems.

I can only get it to machine by plane (which was what I wanted, but the area/plane option made no difference).

One wall of each pocket is a negative angle which doesn't get machined if I use a tool with no corner rad.

The 'optimised clearance' distance seems to be ignored.

The linking approach is not working as expected.

Start points and pocket zone order seem to be ignored.

The toolpath starts and ends at 90 degrees to the tool axis selected (machine Z axis).

An option to overlap passes would be nice.



Apart from that, it's all good. Of course it could well be operator error, as I didn't have time to have a good look.


Cheers.

Sporter,

Thanks for testing and posting. Sounds like you have experienced the same as I have. The plan is to capture everyone's experiences and summarize it in a Webinar with DS and the users.

MultiPocket Flank Contouring takes a seperate license that some of us don't have.

I too do not have the multi-pocket license. If this will be "the next highest priority topic for aerospace machining" it means one more license to buy. When they do get this operation working the way they want to it may be worth the money.

I have this MPG license at work and I hardly use it as it doesn't allow user to have desired control over toolpaths. I have just started a new project after installing sp4 on vista64bit and here are my findings. And I would not recommend this toolpath as no machinist would like to see their cutters starting in the corners. Also you can see in attached pics few more bad things.

*Starting in corners and Ignoring start points
*Tool is crashing in material as it is not respecting By area option along with pocket zones.
*Skipping corners.
*Inconsistent inside corners in different axial levels when HSM option turned off

I would like to participate in MPFC webinar soon and want to know if there are any secret tricks to avoid all that just as Mark and I found workarounds in Multipocket-PowerMachining.

Thanks

here are few more pics

my proposal was to work with COE machining community...on a very important process/operation...but I can work alone...

Nevertheless we will organize a such webinar...because it is alway interesting to share ideas.

I will not answer to the end of the sentence....I read it as a joke.

What licensing is required to run this new module?

MPG : mult pocket machining

Thanks Mr Touron,

Gents,
--------

I am trying to get time to try this, and also get to R19
This is a good excuse to start testing R19 for the dept.
If I can not get permission soon I will do it after hours, and ask for forgiveness if I get caught. Yes, we are all busy

I appreciate Dassault desire to optimize this most important new functionality, for the 5-axis nc programmers, and DS willingness to get feedback from myself and other users.

I hope other users can find the time to experiment with this also.
This is just one of many continuing Webinar's for the alliance with DS and the COE MFG

Previously, we had R18 update, R19 update, tooling, and PAC-MAN-COE awareness Webinar's

Yes, standard MAFC needs to work properly.
I have no idea if this new module can replace it, so until then, I assume we will need both and chose best module. Automatic for where possible. Standard MAFC, for the balance of what's left.

DS has many developers,
I asked last years COE 2008 Orlando, how many different things are capable of being worked on at once. The top ten is just priorities, much more is in the works.

If I can not get the time, before the Webinar to try, I will at least state some general requirements, based on what I think it should have as functionality.

Best Regards,
Dave

Bryan,

You should chill out. Perhaps all that Southern California sunshine is getting to you. The CATIA NC products have improved immensely since I started this game in 1986. Being involved in technical support for a long time, the number of NC issues currently being reported is at a very low level. That could mean a few things...the product is much improved and people are much more satisfied with it, or, people have given up reporting problems out of frustration, or, people arent using it at all anymore. I'd venture to say the first one is probably the most accurate.

I have to say at this time the level of DS participation with the NC user community is unprecedented. The mere fact of Patrick seeking user input on new functionality is a clear message to me that he recognizes the value of all the experience and knowledge that we have to offer. So you can take this as an opportunity to work with DS and improve the product, or you can complain how they should do this and that. Patrick can close shop and just say, "hey, I dont need all this noise from these guys", and go back to his developers who can write great code, but could probably benefit from having some more time experiencing cutting chips. Judging from all your postings and the few conversations I've had with you, you seem like a pretty sharp guy. Like most manufacturing guys, we can be a little rough around the edges. So we welcome your input, but don't spoil it for the rest of us with unnecessary rants and tirades. That is counterproductive. If you think UG is a better product go out and buy it. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to buy CATIA. Somehow people are still managing to make airplanes with it.

Okay...post deleted.

Unbelievable......Just unbelievable.

Gentlemen

I try to communicate peoples enhancement ideas in different ways, so it is understood. This is a little different, but I feel something, so it here goes. I hope I don't ruffle any feathers.

This is healthy, if we look at what the real message is.
Communication is happening here. A message and a delivery.
And the good news is, it is in the private area. so the delivery is to a small audience

The real message, is needs of the small user
-----------------------------------------------------

If DS can make a businessman like Bryan happy, hundreds of potential small users will see CATIA, as a good choice of their own.

Concerns of the small user
VS
The company making software that tries to create software that is usable for all users big and small.

Bryan paid for CATIA with his own hard earned money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan looked at many systems, and chose CATIA several years ago, with all the best hopes for the future.
Bryan that has high expectations, that software to work.
Bryan is more concerned with stability, then new bells and whistles down the road

If you can make this guy happy, you can sell more seats to small users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are Super large, medium, small, and single users.

I am happy with the pace of improvement, and the cooperation with DS mfg software development.

Communication is happening here. A message and a delivery. If we ignore the dilevery, and look at the message, we have someone that speaks, not just for himself, but for the small, and single user.

Every NC programmer, at some point in time ponders, do I buy a system and stop working for these nuts? Be your own boss? So what system do you buy? what post, what about machine simulation?

I can tell you that the smaller the company, the less inhibited a programmer is. I have a lot of shackles myself. Back in 1990, I was it at a small company. No one told me what to do, so I poked and explored, and criticized. Right at the cutting edge. I did a lot of automation, and scripting, and became an verification expert. I created checks for myself. I did this because I had to. I was the only guy.

That, is not the programmer I am today, That is the small user.

I am trying to do the same now pushing..... against people that are content, people afraid of change. I spend my own time 2 weekends ago, and advanced, machine simulation with CATIA. Sure, I saw things to improve, and I will submit them. Keep moving foward, that's the ticket.

The point I am trying to make is:
-----------------------------------------
We need all kinds of people, from all businesses, large and small, to contribute, and work together.

My perspective, is different than say a Lockheed, Northrop, Gulfstream, etc.... ( no offence, I can't list em all). They have needs I don't have, and vica verca.

I think the smaller the user, the better the Ideas. They have diversification. they understand the interconnectivity between ALL the steps necessary, to deliver a product, that being an nc-program to cut metal.

I hope everyone that has contributed ideas, continues especially Bryan as many ER's submitted by him are in the works, and we all get to use them.

Best Regards
Dave

I started a new thread, because I think its important.

CATIA and the needs of the medium and small user

http://www.coe.org/Collaboration/DiscussionForum/ActiveDiscussions/tabid/210/forumid/44/postid/123659/view/topic/Default.aspx

I will delete all my posts this thread here unrelated to MAFC tomorrow.

Lets all respect each other
We all have a Job to do.

And the developers at DS, the DPC, and all of you users, are helping me do my job and yours..

My job = use the right software, and use the software right.

That is what collaboration is all about

Dave

Hello
Related to Mark message (the first one) .....the following points are solved in R19SP3HF1 - R19SP4
1. No apparent method to select start and end points for each pocket. The systems does what it wants.

2. Inability to control the zone order even if zones are selected

3. In machining mode, going from "plane" to "area" seems to make no difference in toolpath

best regards, patrick

Thanks Patrick

My goodness, some of the threads around here have so many posts deleted that it looks like people are talking to themselves.
Worst of all, they get deleted before I get to see them.
I guess I need to turn on email notification so I can reassemble threads and make some sense out of them.

Oh, I almost forgot.
Thanks Mark and Patrick for trying to help us out.

I just installed SP4 this morning, so I have given it another quick try.

Zone order and plane/area now worked OK. But my start points are still being ignored?


Cheers.

My point exactly! This is getting ridicules. self-Censorship.

Yes. You almost have to.

Lets see if I have this right. You post something you are concerned about. You post your true thoughts. What you know is your problem with the software. Then it's......Ring, Ring, hello can you please edit your statement? Maybe even delete it? That's not what you really meant to post, now was it.

Whatever..........

The problem is the forum starts to fall apart when none of what you are reading seems to make sense anymore when you read through it. Because so much has been moved around and deleted.

We cannot keep doing this all the time. True! We must take a breath, hold back a few moments, think twice, then if you feel it is that important to you... share with us at large. We are all adults here and can understand the stress of what you may feel and see through what one may convey.
STOP the CENSORSHIP!

As long as the statements of one is true and not a lie or derogatory twards an individual. It is what they think about the software. Common, When a software that is almost required by our customers for us to use in order to get work from them it makes it like they have no competition. Competition breeds a much better software. If a larger company was as upset with its performance as the small business is, the software developer would be more apt to listen and actually fix or install enhancements. All because of $. More to loose. Please dont take away what the small business really only has, their voice to make a difference in hopes it doesn't fall on deaf ears. If I had invested my personal money in this software as I have in MC and SW. Believe me, you would hear from me a heck of a lot more when something was not working that should. I do not drive cutters as much as I design. And for what cutters I do drive I find most answers to my problems by searching the work a rounds here on the forum.



Yes you are right.

And, Don't think for a moment that I do not appreciate all the efforts that go into what DS has done for all that have to use or choose to use this software. When DS makes efforts as they have to please the masses, one feels there is hope. One makes the effort to have more patience and have more understanding.

OK, I'm rambling now, sorry JM2C.

Patrick,

Thanks for quickly fixing the issues we reported on SP3. I submitted them on May 1 and we got the corrections 2 weeks later. That is excellent response time! Nice work. I'll check the scenario again on SP4.

Everybody,

The "Subscribe" check saves one a lot of time searching through all the threads for updates. I always check it.

Well, what I have to do is just not post, if I think it will hurt someone's feelings...I guess I won't be posting as much...what I said about UG- I meant it. It does the multi-pocket multi-flank perfectly. So why not just "copy" it? It's not like they can copywrite the concept. DS can't steal the programming itself, but I don't see why not emulate something that works well. Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery? It would save years of effort, trial, and error. And we'd all be happy. Same goes for 90 deg heads, engraving, etc...

By the way, somebody has to be the bad guy. Dave's already the good guy, so I can't be that role. Roger is the teacher, Samarinder the professor, Steve is the mentor, Phil is the adjudicator. I get to be the bad guy. But, I get people talking, and that's always a good thing.

Yes! Hashing it out is always good. But you cannot add to the topic if it is always being removed before you get a chance to. We be busy dang it.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
you are funny. Don't care who u are, That is some pretty funny STUFF right thar.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjudicator

Bryan you crack me up.

Steve is laying low...............trying to make parts..........supervising the guys..........keeping us going.

Multi Pocket Fkank is not on my horizon..........I don't have the license.......our parts require ALOT more thought than just clicking
on a part body and awya we go !!

I will attend the webinar........gladly

I love the COE / PIC / DPC / DASSAULT connection

There are alot of strong personalities here.......MOST of which is healthy.

I do not want to stir the pot too much........I just know what I need to get done with Catia.....and it's getting there.
Could it be faster ? Of course......but in the last few years, we've accelerated it greatly.

So......everybody take a deep breath........get back to WORK..........and we'll get this done in a timely, orderly fashion.

Sound good ??

Regards,

Steve Beach

Sorry for all my typos........I 'submitted' too soon , by accident

I do know how to spell, beter than I type.

Bryan


LOL....

Steve,

I went thru your presentation slides and learned 2 new valuable tricks. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.

Bryan, good guys finish last.
And the bad guy gets the girl. lol

No one is trying to run anyone off. It would just be nice if people put a little thought into what they are posting so they don't have to go back and edit or delete posts causing the thread to not make sense. The best thing about forums is that the info is available to the next guy having the same problem. Many people don't have to ask questions because they can do a search and find the answer. These posts will be searched thru for years. But I agree with Phil. Censorship and editing posts is not the way to go. I would prefer that posts be locked from editing and deleting after about 15 min. If you make a mistake it's not that big a deal to make another post to correct yourself.

And please don't bite of the guys that are helping us. Everyone is doing their best to make CATIA work better. We all make mistakes.

And it's only a job. Don't let this stuff make you sick. There are too many people in the world getting sick about what happens at work. What happens away from work is more important.

JMHO Peace

Patrick,

I just tried the scenario on R19SP4 and it looks like the zone order and plane/area machining issues have been addressed.

The only thing that I can not figure out how to do is how to select the location on the walls where I want to BEGIN and END the toolpath. That is what I mean by "Start" and "End" points.

I think we are getting confused with the definition of CATIA "Start" and "End" points. CATIA "Start" and "End" points are defined in reference to the Limiting Contour and Rough Stock.

To the user, it is extremely important to be able to choose/pick the location on the walls of the pocket where the toolpath should begin and finish (or start and end).

Intuitively, it would seem that the first face selected for the drive surfaces would include some position of where the toolpath would begin. Unless I am overlooking something, there does not appear to be any control over where the toolpath begins, regardless of which face is chosen first.

I hope this is more clear now.

Hello
In this Multi pocket Flank discussion, I saw picture with tool paths, is it possible to have the CATPart/CATProduct/CATProcess? We will work on it to understand the issues...and solve them (of course)

I am talking about Samarinder's post.

Thanks in advance
patrick

Hi Patrick,

I'll try to send you the sample files later this week.

Thanks
Samarinder

I checked with my DS sales manager, and anyone that wants to try this, can request a 30 day trial, on MPG.

MPG actually has useful and cool 3-axis functionality, which is to rough and finish in a z-level methodology, in a single MO, for high speed machining, so it is useful, in its current form, if you have the right kind of part, and machining.

I wish I could take the lead on testing this, but I am swamped, so my mgt say no time to play, until the work is done. A little short sighted, but.... I'm used to it.

Looks like our friend Samarinder, has documented some good finds, and has a real airplane part to play with. And as Mark Chitjian stated, things are getting cleaned up.
Dave

Speaking of short sighted, I will tell you a funny story that a manager once told me, trying to explain why it is hard to take time to try new things, even new things that have obvious advantages.

Here it goes:

We are on a submarine, being chased by the Nazis. ( for you youngsters, Nazis were bad people that like to kill people, Americans, French, English, Polish, Russians, many more. kill all the good guys ),

Any way, we are on submarine, all ahead flank, as Nazis are just out of torpedo range. So here come little Dave, saying " Captain! Captain! I have a better propeller!!, we can use it to go faster, and escape. "

The captain then scolds little Dave: SON, we can't stop the submarine to change the propeller. we will slow down and we will be in range, we will get torpedoed. What are you? stupid?".

Dave mutters under his breath,

This isn't a submarine.
This is a business.

and you can add capacity, in many ways. Adding people, farming out a job, or simply working smarter. Boss man then keys on the phrase "working smarter" and the Boss man, being from the planet Vulcan, blurts out, hey : you calling me stupid" (For you youngsters, people from the planet Vulcan can read minds). This guy was from Earth, but though he could read minds.

Luckily, this is all ancient history.

Current management is supporting my efforts to implement Machine Builder and Machine Simulation, in CATIA.

HIJACK / OFF, AUTO

I hope to get a window of time soon, to get on it, or have of my co-programmers mess with MPG. DS is putting the effort to make it work. We should all try to put our two cents in.

One thing I would like to know, if anyone has the ability to check, is if there are some pockets that are say 2 inch deep, and some walls sticking up, 3 or 4 inches, how the high areas are machined.

Sometimes, we like to cut everything we can with a 2 inch cutter, and then come in with the longer cutter, only where needed.

Another issue would be different tlaxis strategies. It if likely that of you have a ruled surface, not all walls will be ruled. Is there some auto detect for that?

Another issue would controlling startup Tlaxis. I like to not start and end every approach / retract, with a 0,0,1 tlaxis vector.

I am interested in if reference points are needed, and how they work.

I know I am swinging with a blindfold, but hopefully suggestions on what people would like to see, in a multi pocket 5-axis module , I think those kind of comments would be helpful, even without trying it, for what ever reason, usually time.

I'm in the same boat (sub) Dave. Machine builder is taking up most of my time and I have parts to program.
We don't have MultiPocket Flank here and I don't feel like playing with it at home with my HEAT license.
If I stop and take on another project I'm sure to get torpedoed.
And lets not forget, it's summertime and I have boats and motorcycles to play with.

Where else can you get paid HIJACKING/OFF ?

Samarinder,

Were you able to get any files to DS?

Dave

Dave,
I am still working on it.

a file transfer area is available...don't hesitate to deliver the part/process. A guy in my team is waiting for these data and he will work on this topic....when he will have the data

thanks in advance for your help
patrick

Patrick,

The conical end mill problem was reported in PMR 29394,227,000. I have sent you the pmr text and Word doc (from DS). HD83812 was closed as "PRS".

The contact point problem is PMR 29391. HD83811 closed as "USE".
All files sent to DS were included in my email to you.

(This same response has been posted in the Members Only forum under "Subject: Catia Maintenance, Is it worth it?")

Has anyone been able to evaluate the MultiPocket Flank functionality yet? According to Dave, you can obtain a 30 day trial license from DS to test it. If you are an IBM customer, please contact your IBM marketing rep about getting a temporary license.

That is correct Mark, as I Posted on 27 May 2009 08:03 PM

"I checked with my DS sales manager, and anyone that wants to try this, can request a 30 day trial, on MPG.

also as I Posted, MPG actually has useful and cool 3-axis functionality, which is to rough and finish in a z-level methodology, in a single MO, for high speed machining, so it is useful, in its current form, if you have the right kind of part, and machining."

I STILL wish I could take the lead on testing this, but I am swamped, so my mgt say no time to play, until the work is done. A little short sighted, but.... I'm used to it.

I will take another try with MGT, as I am wrapping up a fun program.



Dave

If I can get some temp licenses or become a beta tester. That would be great for both parties as you know I'll do very thorough testing. I think I am asking for a job..

I have the license, and I did check it out briefly when I first received R19. I also tried to use the original multi-pocket "power-machining". Problem with "Power-machining" is that it doesn't respect zone order at all, so you have a path jumping all over the place, doing pockets in random order. Also, it doesn't respect part dimensions closely enough, so that if you have a part where the floor is at say Z+.125, you get a path which may cut it outputting Z+.1252, varying all over the place. Yes, it's within tolerance in most cases- but I just don't like it, even if the pocket order was correct.

Regarding "Multi-flank Multi Pocket", there is no control of start point, so I found that it was always entering each set of walls in the corner using a line vector of around 45 degrees. This would end up with a mark in the part corner, unless a very slow feed was used. I prefer to arc into a wall, away from the corner. The path reminded me of some old NCL/APT programs I used to see, where the programmer didn't want to create any extra geometry or macro's for his lead-in, and instead used a 3 surface startup GO command. No bueno. I think it needs some local modification support, local reference points, and local start points.

But what is the intention of these paths? Are they meant to be perfect production tool paths, or are they meant to be used for onesy-twosy prototype parts where some marks may be acceptable, and having a perfect toolpath takes back-seat to very fast programming? If the second is the intention, then I suppose they are very close to being okay, and may even be useable. Even when I'm told by a customer, "Give us a cheap quote and use all automatic paths...we don't care to have a good program, we just want it cheap and fast...an 8 hour run-time on a 1 hour part is okay with us..." Yes, this is requested of me sometimes...I just can't do it...I'm too anal...there's several MO's I won't use because of this, even if they do work as intentioned. I'll create geometry for a perfect path (meaning few or none at all broken lines or arcs, and as little motion as needed to finish a surface). Maybe these MO's are very close to working. It seems that just a little tweaking on power-machining and it would work okay. I think Multi MAFC needs a lot of work, but I never tried rebuilding every single wall to get it to enter and exit properly. Seems to me that would defeat the purpose.

Nice post Bryan

MPG is a good option to have. Few months back I tried it and results were really good with a little workaround which Mark and I got after submitting it to DS.
DS gave a little workaround where user has to fake the thickness on the floor. Lets say 0.0001in

But leaving a small thickness on the floor will give you the desired results. And I dont know if it is fixed in SP6.

Bryan,

Thanks for the quality feedback. I hope you can attend the webinar on Dec. 8. Hopefully DS is watching. Lack of control of the start point is what I found immediately. Control of the start point location is mandatory. Macro capability also needs to be "beefed" up. My guess on the intent of MultiPocket Flank is that it should be used for finishing walls. Patrick, yes or no?

For Power Machining, try adding .0001 to the floors. DS came back with this suggestion and it worked for Samarinder and me. Why that makes it work,only DS knows! I havent tried it in SP6 yet.

Thanks Mark, I forgot about the .0001 trick, but I still usually can't get it to respect zone orders, and that's the toughest thing to get right...I could always use the toolpath editor to get the Z values perfect. Truth is, I just haven't gotten any 3-axis parts to program with lots of pockets and where the customer wants rough and finish with the same tool, so I haven't pushed to get this path working for me. I think that is basically what the path is meant for.

There's actually tons of stuff in Catia to make programming simpler for 3-axis prismatic parts. I had the chance to use some of them before, but not nearly to their limit. There's tons of automatic stuff, and if a shop specialized in a few simplish types of parts, Catia could be really automated to do MUCH of the work automatically.

There's just not very much for the complicated parts which most of us program in reality. I very rarely have used my prismatic machining assistant, though it has come in handy in the past. I'll be happy to attend the webinar on Dec 8th. I haven't received an invitation yet.

I think the best enhancement for MAFC would be something that was suggested long ago. We'd like to have MAFC type "features". These would be features we could save (DS, CS, PS, local mod's, start/end points, and MULTIPLE ref. points.) Any surface could easily be swapped, and local mods reapplied- in any order. Then these features could be used (in the same type of way that prismatic features are currently used in prismatic paths) in new MAFC or Multi-pocket MAFC paths.

Speaking of multiple Reference points: I believe these should be able to work similar to INDIRV worked in APT. The INDIRV would simply be a line normal to a line normal to the DS from the ref. pt. in the current direction of travel. I'm pretty sure that's how it works now. Having the multiple reference points (INDIRV) should help Catia to get around those rare times when it loses its sense of forward direction. I have my own tricks, and still have never found a part I couldn't get the tool to get around, but still....INDIRV is just so much easier.

Also, these reference points SHOULD be done in the "local modifications" section so that Catia knows exactly which DS the local reference point (INDIRV) should be applied to.

Some of this is already mentioned here over a year ago by me and Cliff.

http://www.coe.org/Collaboration/DiscussionForum/ActiveDiscussions/tabid/210/view/topic/forumid/5/postid/118066/Default.aspx

http://www.coe.org/Collaboration/DiscussionForum/ActiveDiscussions/tabid/210/view/topic/forumid/44/postid/119819/Default.aspx

Start Points are there and they work sometimes as I mentioned in the earlier posts in this topic.

In survey I have asked these points again

Power Machining
1. Need Cleaner toolpaths in corners between radial passes when working in helical mode
2. Ability to use this MO without defining stock just like regular pocketing MO

MPFC
1. Ability to cut the drive surfaces completely with cleaner, consistent toolpaths with less jumps
2. Ability to produce a pocketing toolpaths just as its name for both open and closed and keep the tool-axis fixed until it is getting closer to walls.
3. Ability to select Clearance feedrate other than Rapid and Need to honor the pocket zone order

MAFC

1. Ability to define "Multi-Axis Flank Machining area" where user can define PS, DS, CS and then user can instantiate a stored MP from a catalog
2. Ability to have gouge check on Approach/Retract moves just as in 2d profile contouring between curve and surface and ability to get cleaner toolpaths without pinch moves especially at corners and sometimes on part surfaces
3. Ability to define a vector to control the direction of cut especially when Forward direction is reversed

Samarinder,

Thanks for the info below and in the survey. I'm compiling everything for DS. So far 23 persons have filled out the survey. The Tooling Survey pulled 29 respondents. Lets beat the record everyone!

Mark,

No problem. I have requested a temp license and hopefully I'll get more testing done before this webinar.

Check it out. They must have made some repairs. This looks a hell of a lot better. It's respecting the zone order. Yay! And not starting in corners! Now just some way to keep the tool down and I think it's looking pretty good. Good job DS.

Here are pics of the video simulation and video analysis. It looks pretty good. Full cleanup, at least.

MO #1- Power Machining. Leave .125 on walls
MO #2- Multi-pocket Multi-Flank to Finish
MO #3- Profile Contour Offset on fillet profile -.125 to cleanup floor fillet normal to floor.

This would work on a one-off part. Changes I'd need on a production part is ability to keep the tool down in between passes on each pocket, and ability to overlap the multi-axis contouring path if I didn't want to make a spring pass to remove cutter marks on entry/exit. They could add the same kind of option available for overlap as on Profile Contour. Okay, my research is done for the day. Back to work...

Thanks Bryan
We all benifit from the time you spent
Great Job

Dave

All of you, but me...if something really good comes out, I may have to reinstate my maintenance!

Bryan

Ah my favorite subject. As I said on the pacmen thread, I do understand your issue on ALC is kind of like me not buying a service contract for my wife's Toyota sequoia. Or going to a movie without seeing a trailer. Heck, I bought a Toyota. I did not buy a service contract. My thinking was: I shouldn't need a service contract, because I bought a Toyota. I just wanted a stable car to drive for ten years. I get it.


I have seen in another posts, the you said you regret older post and whining. I respect you a lot for that. It takes a real man to move forward as you have.

******************
In case you missed it here is what Brian said.

Brian said """"if you look at some of my posts from last year. I used to whine and whine about Catia not doing this, not doing that, and why can't it do this or that. I'm embarrassed about it, now. In fact it's only been pretty recently that I've been totally satisfied for the most part, and realized that I have not found a thing I couldn't get my tool to do""""

*******************

Bryan, I bet you in 2 years or less, you are back on maintenance
Sunday Brunch at the Hilton, universal.
winner and wife eats free.

Ahhh !! opens old wounds.

You look at the progress from COE and PACMEN working together, And some people think // perhaps thought, they need to insult Dassault to get them to listen. People that make comments about the developers. All we need to do is effectively communicate or problems, and our ideas. Whining is just a distraction.

Samarinder,
I think the thread Catia Maintenance is it worth it, is offensive, and counterproductive. Always have. Always will. I see the MFG COE members only forum as a monument to Dassaults willingness and .... eagerness, to work with us, all of us....... That thread to me is like a dog terd, in the middle of a beautiful room, with lovely curtains, soft couches, and mahogany polished cabinetry, and a lovley woman in an evening dress, with a glass of Chateauneuf du Pape . Oh yeah, there the dog crap in the corner.It is the blight of the neiborhood.

Rename it and I will be happy.

I would appreciate it, if the programmer that owns that thread, sends an email to coe.org
Anyone can to that and rename a thread they started. send an email that says ""please rename "Catia Maintenance is it worth it", to "I use to think Catia Maintenance was not worth it, but I am more knowledgeable now and am happy". or what ever you choose to make the point.

Dassault does their job.

We are all lucky that our friends at Dassault have a thick skin, in the face of such insults. yes, they do their job. I am not saying you intended to insult then. but if I was a DS developer, I would take great offense at it.

There. I said it. This is not personal. This is buisness. I want the developers focused on technical, not political things. I actually have your best interest at heart.

It's a free country and you can say anything you want. you are also free to apologies, and correct mistakes, and free to fire back at me if that is what you want. Hey, we are all friends, and want better software.

Ok folks, everyone and I mean everyone, have a great weekend.

Dave

Dave,
I have much to post and post the Inducer for 5-axis machine which I finished in a record time and I am enjoying my new laptop which computed 50,000 points 5-axis helix machining toolpath for a blade in 36 sec and I used .0002" machining tolerance. And the blade size was pretty good ( a 12inch dia inducer with 4 blades )

Anyway the start points worked fine in sp4 but toolpaths are no good when you are cutting a real part unlike Bryan's part with open angled pockets.
I will delete the thread when I get all the fixes done especially when it comes down to a good cutting action.

Do you know that all sweeping, contouring surface machining MO have gone bad after r17 sp5

I am very busy this week and I hate to say that Catia is lacking some good cutting action which can be found in Surfcam's TrueMill and Mastercam's DynamicMill also, there is an add on Volumill which cant be used with Catia.

Edit: I am saying it because I am watching my client using these 2 software packages and you can't even dream about matching the speed and productivity that he is outputting using Surfcam.

Here is some comparison info in last 4 days working with my client

I made 6 part-programs using CatiaV5 R19 with 2 programs in 3-axis and 3 programs in 5-axis for aerospace parts with moderate complexity and 1 program in 5-axis for full 5-axis inducer.

He made 12 part programs using Surfcam Velocity 4.0 with 3 for 2-axis lathe including 1 for mill turn, 4 for 3-axis, and 3 for 5-axis, 2 for horizontal 4-axis.

However my programs were fully documented along with DML(thanks to Deepak) which could benefit for any future change in design, etc.

I would recommend you to search internet for that and do some study on TrueMill or Volumill technology and see how they cut the material since you like to get more enhancements to help us. Maybe DS can add similar and better stuff in Catia in future.

And you are telling me to rename the thread for nothing. Just read my last comments in that thread where I am saying that DS is doing good job with the release of R19.

I gotta go now, I have to work for another 5-axis project which will be machined in 2 pieces and then welding, then finish machining. I thinkg it is a scaled model for wind tunnel testing. So far I am enjoying it.

Hey Bryan,

Can I come over this weekend and play with your MPM license?
It will be easier for me, then to go thru the red tape, of the 30 day trial, this close.
Or we can meet in the middle like brunch at the universal hilton.
I have some things I'd like to see.

Thanks
Dave

Earth to Bryan, come in Bryan

Commadeer to Raven, Come in Rambo

Sorry...I can't do it this weekend. Sorry Dave. Cecile would kill me. I'm helping a friend move Saturday, and it's her first weekend back after graduating with an M.E. from France. It's also my last weekend before I send Jules to Science camp for a week starting Monday.

Its almost showtime!
Date: Tuesday, December 8th
Time: 11:00 a.m. EDT

Don't forget to register
"V5R19 MultiAxis Machining Exploration" Ask the Expert

http://www.coe.org/EventsEducation/AsktheExpertsWebcasts/tabid/227/Default.aspx
Click on "Register" near the bottom of the page and follow the prompts

The primary focus of the Webinar will be on the R19 MultiPocket operations: Power Machining and MultiPocket Flank Contouring.

Patrick Touron has communicated to me that DS will be participating and presenting during the session.
I sent him the survey results earlier this week.

The Agenda is (subject order may change) is:

Quick review of survey results
Power Machining and MultiPocket Flank toolpath demo
DS presentation and comments
Open phone lines for user discussion

We are scheduled for an hour session, so please strive to focus your questions and comments on the issues that most impact your daily productivity and manufacturing efficiency.

=========================================================================

Here are the results of the MultiAxis Survey. I am posting these results before the session in order to allow more time for us to dig in to some actual toolpath scenarios and discussions.

COE DPC thanks all 28 persons who responded to the Survey.

1. Which is the latest CATIA level that you are working on?

R19 64%
R18 25%
R17 7%
R16 and earlier 3%

2. Have you been able to evaluate and/or use the following multi-pocket operations?

YES NO
Power Machining 14% 86%
MultiPocket Flank 35% 65%

3. What are the three most important enhancements you'd like in Power Machining? (4 users responded)

I would like them make the Approach feedrate be a % of the machine feedrate. That we can just change the % of what we want.
Need cleaner toolpaths in corners between radial passes when working in helical mode
Thin floor without vacuum strategies
For it to respect zone orders (appears to be fixed in R19 SP6)

(2nd most important)
I would like removal of wasted motion
Ability to use this MO without defining stock just like regular pocketing MO
Zone order that works (appears to be fixed in R19 SP6)
For it to respect floor dimensions

(3rd most important)
On radial it would be nice if it would give us a message if a better step over would be faster.

4. What are the three most important enhancements you'd like in MultiPocket Flank Machining? (8 users responded)

Ability to cut the drive surfaces completely with cleaner, consistent toolpaths with less jumps
A start point that is more user friendly/predictable
To work, I could not get the tool to stay on the walls
For it to work
Better tool axis contol
Local modification settings
Better control over the pocket start points
Special cutters

(2nd most important)
Ability to produce the pocketing toolpaths just as its name for both open and closed, and keep the tool-axis fixed until it starts getting closer to the walls
A better respect of the zones defined (appears to be fixed in R19 SP6)
Training
Zone order that works (appears to be fixed in R19 SP6)
Local entry points
Control over the pocket order points

(3rd most important)
Ability to select Clearance feedrate other than Rapid and need to honor the pocket zone order
Toolpath management when machining outer part and pockets
Flank walls

5. For Multi-Axis Flank Contouring operation, please rank these previously submitted enhancement requests... (25 users responded)

Ability to add drive surface without removing and reselecting existing drive surfaces
44% Extremely High
40% High
16% Medium
0% Low

Ability to use different tool axes for roughing and finish passes
13% Extremely High
29% High
38% Medium
21 Low

Ability to set DS/CS condition in local modifications
13% Extremely High
50% High
33% Medium
4% Low

Ability to store operation in process file
21% Extremely High
17% High
17% Medium
45% Low

6. EXCLUDING enhancements stated in Question #5, please enter other enhancements you would like to see in Multi-Axis Flank Contouring. (8 users responded)

(Most Important)
Simplification of use
Ability to define "Multi-Axis Flank Machining area" where user can define PS, DS, CS and then user can instantiate a stored MP from a catalog
"Copy from" tool for copying drive/check/mods from another operation
Ability to give local Reference points and/or direction vectors so it won't lose forward direction
Can't really say at this time, not able to get it to work properly.
Define special cutters
I would like the tool to fan to a given max angle while driving a surface. For example if the surface is at 23° angle and have a machine limitaion of 20°. I would still like the tool to be able to fan at my max given angle of 20° irrespective of what the actual surface is.
Less failing tool paths when using negative PS values

(2nd most important)
This strategy never works properly on our parts
Ability to have gouge check on Approach/Retract moves just as in 2D profile contouring between curve and surface and ability to get cleaner toolpaths without pinch moves especially at corners and sometimes on part surfaces
"Link to" tool for using drives/checks/local mods from another operation
Less failing when the only problem is 'tolerance'

(3rd most important)
Diagnostic messages are too vague and almost useless
Ability to define a Vector to control the direction of cut Ability to define a vector to control the direction of cut especially when Forward direction is reversed
Ability to program MAFC using VB
Tlaxis fan / combin etc.....some times fails for no reason

7. What manufacturing topics would you like future webinars to explore?

Expanding capability of MP's and UDF's, more types
Automatic feeds and speeds calculation
Publications used in NC
Probing
PPR Management especially for large number of machining operations
Geometry building/management for optimum MO toolpath
Power copies, visual basic in manufacturing
Manufacturing Infrastructure - Specifically Catalogs
Cleaner Cavity Roughing without all of the Retracting
Better control of roughing. Use of multiple limit curves in one MO with adjustable offsets available on each --- similar to "islands" in prismatic machining.
Examples of powercopies in MFG
Making a machining process to be used in a family of parts
Tool libraries - Speeds and feeds for different materials
I need a way to preserve V4 NCMILL logic when I migrate to V5 or V6. The current preservation scheme of V4 NCMILL sets is USELESS! I have a great deal of legacy V4 NCMILL work that I need to keep current. The current scheme of working with migrated V4 NCMILL operations is a serious concern. It means I need to keep V4 and the associated hardware running for many years to come. This is obviously a risky proposition. I need a way to migrate, and RETAIN the ability to modify NCMILL set within V5 and V6 as if V4 NCMILL was runing within V5 or V6. Otherwise my investment in legacy programs is essentially useless.
Drilling
Using KWA/KWE in NC
Roughing and control of output
Publishing
CATALOG Creation and Ease of use as well as Machining Geometry creation from copmplex surfaces
PPTables, Machining Processes, VB, Formulas
Lathe machine building and simulation
Some "simple" automation scripting that we could use to build on
Large Tool Catalogs
Automation ; automation ; Vb customization ...
Associativity.......cutter standards.....best practices.....machine processes

8. What is your greatest concern about migrating to V6?

Interoperability 40%
Cost 29%
Data Security 0%
Transition from File Based to DB 43%
All of the above 47%

Hey this is great stuff. What I like best is the plethora of responses to 7..... What manufacturing topics would you like future webinars to explore?

Looks like Mark Chitjian and James B , are going to have fun planning, for some time to come.

MY #1 IS UP THERE

Ability to add drive surface without removing and reselecting existing drive surfaces..... I say with MAFC, you can drive anything, and adding this functionality, will make life more enjoyable, for all the CATIA NC programmers, and enjoying life is most important.

SORRY

I have to apologize to all you guys. I asked my new boss 6 months ago, you know the really really really stupid boss, to request a temp license for me to mess with this, and he is like “if you don’t do it some one else will so NO”…. what a dunce. But it does show the old school attitude many have. But you know, I see the other PACMEN came thru where I could not, at least on this subject. I can do a lot without permission, but this require a lic request and It to install it…….But, I do what I can and you guys have put a lot of great things here for our friends to work with.


SHOW ME THE TOOL PATH UP TO THE POINT IT FAILS

A late idea from me, is … I would like to see on MAFC, the tool path up to an error. The way it works now, you hit compute, and sit and wait……. 59 seconds to go, 13 seconds to go, then it fails. An nice message box pops up with all sorts of useful information , but…… I would like to see the tool path display on the part it did calculate. If it fails on drive surface 5, let me see the motion on drive surfaces one thru 4. Because, it may not be on the correct side ( left / right) that I am trying to do. Any visual hints like I am describing will help.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REFERENCE POINT, AND ADD FUNCTIONALITY TO IT.

Many times, it is the darn reference point being in the wrong spot, by I got to tell you, I have never really got a good handle that little green point dude . I would like some rules. With NCL, you positioned with a goto ( or from but I NEVER used from), So here’s the deal, there were rules.
1. Always be closer to the drive surface then the check surface
2. The indirection vector pointed to the check surface.

It always worked.
Looked something like this

ZSURF/ CLPL
GOTO/ (PT/IO, (LN/PA,LN1,XL,HDIA+.1), (LN/PA,STK2,YL,HDIA+.1))
GODLTA/ (PL/PA,ZPL3,ZL,FLR+.1), ZF
INDVEC/ 1,1,0
THICK / FLR, WAL, WAL+.5
GO/ LN1, ZPL3, LN2, RAMPFD

MAFC DETAILING CORNERS INTERMITTENTLY FAILS, UNTIL YOU GET THE LITTLE GREEN MAN IN THE RIGHT SPOT

I have a 5 axis part
Lots of corners to pick out.
I get a corner just right with the macros, step down, blab la bla
So I copy and past that MAFC cornering MO a bunch of times. It work great on corners, but on 5 of them, I an trying reference points all over the place. I wish I knew what to do to know were to pick. I try here NO, and there, NO and this corner of the fixture NO, and that railtop edge. How about this tool tab, No how about that railtop, bzzzzzzzzzzz computed . Yayyyyyyyyyy.


WHAT IF AN ADDITIONAL POINT METHOD WAS ADDED

I always put a point, ahem , build some geometry, a center point in every pocket
The center point was useful for macro to nibble out corners
A point in the center of the pocket is always on the correct side of wall, when picking out corners

So I could say
DNTCUT
GOTO / CENTPT(3)
IP / (PT/IO, DS1,DS2) (indirection vector created from point intersection)
THICK / .25, .5, .2
GO/ DS1,PARTSF, DS2
TEMPPT= PT/TE
RAPID, GODLTA/ CLPL
CUT
RP, GOTO/ TEMPPT

I was thinking that if we put center points in pockets, and DS added intuitive code, that this kind of point is on the correct side of the intersection of drive surface one and drive surface two..

USE THE SIDE OF THE SURFACE THE MOUSE PICKED

I will throw another one at you, though I talked about this before.
Use the side of the surface the mouse picked
This is the way it works now :You pick a drive surface and the orange arrow pops up, and you can select the arrow and it will go to the near side of the surface or the far side.

This is easy, use the side of the surface the mouse picked. If that is attainable, then all this reference point, and orange arrow selection would be …. Automatic

TLAXIS FANNING TO A KNOWN ANGLE

I would like the tool to fan to a given max angle while driving a surface. For example if the surface is at 23° angle and have a machine limitation of 20°. I would still like the tool to be able to fan at my max given angle of 20° irrespective of what the actual surface is. “

For Who ever said this, I discussed this with Patrick in depth, at COE 2008 Orlando. Dassault understands the requirement, and I know nothing of progress but we can hope. I brought a process with a 150 f22 cosmic part that looks like a ….. titanium pool slide with pockets and ribs on the convex side. On the concave side the swarfing M/L at one end was 18 deg and 32 deg at the other. To do this with the CATIA I had in 2008, I created a spline thru points, and I moved the points around and did analysis, to have the points lie where the normal’s were 25 degrees.

The motion was like this,
TLAXIS / ATANGL, .25, PS, CLDIST, .01
TLON, GF/ DRIVCV, ON, 25STOPCV ( the stop curve )
TLAXIS / SAME
GF/ DRIVCV, PAST, RGTEOP

What I am thinking now that I am messing with machine builder……. CATIA knows the kinematics. This is critical. We can not say Tlaxis / normal, ps, until B25, unless you have a machine builder license and tell CATIA if the A is carrying the B or if the B is carrying the A.

OK it’s almost 11pm, and that Ice cream Klondike bar rush is wearing off, and I need my beauty rest. Actually the rush came from reading the survey Mark, I love the way you posted the survey before the webinar. That leaves us time to kick the tires, and more time at the webinar.

Best Regards to all and to all a good night
Dave

Dave said:
"This is the way it works now :You pick a drive surface and the orange arrow pops up, and you can select the arrow and it will go to the near side of the surface or the far side.

This is easy, use the side of the surface the mouse picked. If that is attainable, then all this reference point, and orange arrow selection would be …. Automatic"


This has been a pet peeve of mine since I started in R13. I've "scrapped" a few parts in the beginning (in Vericut) because I either didn't catch it when creating the toolpath or the arrow jumped to the other side without me catching it. For manufacturing this suggestion seems very basic and elementary and should have been fixed in the very early revisions of MFG. We rarely cut surfaces, usually faces of a solid, so I always thought the arrow should point OUTWARD from our solids since in MFG you would never want to cut inside a solid. Your idea covers it all.

Richard,

I can not tell a lie. The idea is from my old boss from 12 years ago.

Do you know what else the old boss said? hold on.

Attention Dassault Systems:
Ok, the old boss with over a dozen seats of UGNX, and one seat oc CATIA, he said that "If CATIA V5 MFG had NCL or APT build into it, with the macro, scalars language, associativity..... It would make me switching from UG to V5, a no brainer"

This old company is close to FMI, was an NCL shop thru the 80's into the 90's, By 1997 had a dozen seats of V4 in mfg alone, and more in tool design. In the late 90;s, looking at no more support from V4, and V5 something in the future, that company decides to get a dozen seats of UG, which is their prime system today.

I say this is not to say there is anything wrong with V5, just that NCL/APT, lets you do exactly what you want, when you need to do some things. The great thing about having NCL/APT in V5, if it possible, and I don't know if it is, it the little need for traininig. As complex as NCL is for the trainee, I think 80% of the power users in catia now, know NCL like the back of their hand.

Isn't that right Steve Beach, Roger, Bruce Lotz, John Gates, Billy Prices... oh sorry 4vasaour, Chad ncprogrammer, Sam Rao ( Happy retirement Sam see you Sunday), and on and on.

Me thinks you would have a real happy bunch of gentlmen, if this is possible.
If Dassault wants to take this seriously, I am sure we can supply a plethora of justifications and scenarios, for its use.

Best
Dave

I don't think it would take that much...I'm sure they could come up with, or purchase a good standard APT compiler that put out a Catia compatible source CL file (and even if they bought one that put out a binary CL file, they could convert it). Then, they just need something to convert CATPart geometry to APT geometry. Since CATAPT (still alive and well) already could convert full V4 geometry to APT geometry (including sculptured surfaces, and it was slick...one could select certain geometry, and give them labels of their choosing, or do it automatically), then they'd just have the simpler task of converting V5 geometry to V4, licensing/buying CATAPT to convert to APT geometry, and then just add the APT compiler. User could switch back and forth at will, using MO's with graphics and APT. When using APT, everything would work as normal. Video replay would run the APT toolpath, just like any other MO. Just add an MO type called APT, in which one can select certain geometry, give them a label, they'd save to a new geometrical set, and could be driven with the APT MO.

That would be the coolest damn thing in the world that ever existed for NC programmers. No one could EVER say, Catia can't do this or can't do that, obviously, with that ability the sky would be the limit (or the programmers imagination.) We'd have the option of full and complete associativity to a level never achieved in Catia. It's hard to even imagine how awesome that would be. Use graphics to rough...use APT to finish. Families of parts, a no-brainer. Toss design tables out the window. Though I've done some part families with design tables that worked out really well...APT would give so much flexibility, it would be amazing. Many, many parts I program could use features of APT to add much more power, associativity, and just better toolpaths in some situations.

Yeah, I could come up with plenty of situations, but I wouldn't spend my time doing that, unless I knew they were seriously considering adding it to V5. I really don't think it would be that difficult to add, and I don't think there's any way it could cause any harm. Ever hear of CATAPT? Do a search. I think they still have a website.

I think we're dreaming, though. Using INCLUD statements allows me to save APT macros to a folder and call them in Catia. And in some cases it works well- special LOADTL's or machine instructions, Failsafe motion, safety motion, etc. Macro's that can grab information from a parameterized second CUTTER statement (simple to add to the NC_COMPENSATION section of the pptable....CUTTER/%MFG_TOOL_DIA, %MFG_TOOL_RAD or something like that...), or have geometry built into the macro. But it's very difficult to do anything else efficiently without an APT geometry converter. Don't get our hopes up, Dave. You know that many of us would be really excited to see something like that in Catia. And NCCS would be shivering in fear....I like those guys over there, very much, but it would be a hard sale, if Catia added full APT ability to V5. Putting the effort into V6, in my opinion is a waste, since it will be many years before the OEM's go to V6 from what I gather.


P.S. Regarding the reference point question when picking 5-axis corners with MAFC. Here's what I think the problem is. Although, MAFC came from NCL, I believe that it is still limited in that there is no "TRANTO" or multiple CHECK in effect in the way that APT does it. (For those unfamiliar....in APT/NCL, one could give multiple CHECK surfaces which act as the surface controlling where the tool goes after finishing the current drive. In some cases such as a radial path where the corner surface is not used, or where a cutter is used that is larger and doesn't even touch an in between surface, multiple checks would allow the cutter to go to whichever surface is contacted first, and the logical TRANTO would tell the cutter where to jump forward in the program in that case. A simplified explanation, I know...but that's basically how it works.)

So...often times, the corner surface cannot be calculated (Drive 2), and the tool should rather go straight to the next wall (Drive 3). MAFC doesn't seem to be able to do that, often times. The solution is to NOT even pick the corner surface as geometry, and use local mods (usually TO and LEFT), and if neccessary pick a reference point between the two surfaces. Then use the HSM output tab to control the corner radius needed on the part.

A reference point basically works like the APT FROM, and the first surface the tool goes to is like a 3 surface APT GO statement (DS being Drive one, PS being the Part Surface nearest the DS, and CS being the Start plane.) The big problem when you have MANY of these corners to do, is that there is no way to set local mods to default to any value (in this case, one would set LEFT and TO).

Many people think that "Max distance between steps" basically has the same function "Max discretization step". It doesn't. It is a setting to set tolerance in the way the toolpath calculates each tool position. 99% leave it at a large number, default (1.937in). But when you have trouble getting MAFC to compute correctly, you must tighten up that value. It is also critical to set correct contact height with all tool axis types that have the option, as this works the same way as APT CUTTER/OPTION set a "ring" contact point on a cutter to calculate tool position.

I think learning APT AFTER learning geometry CAM programming, really helped me to become a more thoughtful, more efficient, and faster programmer. I really recommend it to any programmer who hasn't done so. It also gave me a huge amount of respect for NC, and a greater understanding of what before was just "magic" going on when I would click a button! Then, that book "Aircraft Analytical Geometry" you turned me on to, really turned on the lights! I had learned most of that math in high-school, but to have it all together in one small little book was great! I have 3 books on APT, but the one by KRAL is the best.

So, Mark....it looks like if you add APT in to CATIA Mr. Felsher would be all over paying his maintenance?

HAHAAHAHAHAHa have a great weekend guys!

:stirring the pot: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I shoulda bought NCL.

Now your lying Roger.
I may have to add you to the list of people I don't take seriously
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just Kidding

A seat of NCL would look nicely sitting on the shelf along with my seats of CATIA and PC-APT.

I just want the code for the 3% of the tasks where the motion would be more efficent, by writeing the motion. A small are of a normal Catia part program.


I would not want to go back to NCL.
for one thing, NCL will never be ...... ah never say never, had no intention of competing with solid modeling cam systems. Not the way to go. Their 5-axis was 2nd to none
That's why DS
DS is like the BORG, the star trek aliens that acimilate every thing of value.


We just want to tap into more then we have access to in the GUI


For Catia, I could go on and on.

I love the solid modelling in catia
... the integration with tooling.
........confidence in the surface translation thru IGES of MESH surflack, Becaus you don't need no stinking IGES
.......... The Customer love us because we are using CATIA not just for converting but for mfg with not tranlators.
.......................the Video is integrated and you can save in process on the tree, and Replay where you are at on demand. ( OK the gouge detection in Vericut is better, but DS can allways fix that.)
............................. Check Reachability is Hot.

.............on and on and on.


I'd just like the NCL/APT IF, I repeate IF it is possible.

I don't think NCCS would shake in their boots, but shake the $ in the pocket, with royalties.

Nice post Bryan.


Lets kick around some other ideas on the survey.

CATIA is pretty darn good
We can make it better.
here in this ecosystem that COE and DS has provided

the funniest thing
==============

The following here is the funniest thing anyone said looking at one of my NCL wireframe surfaces and curves and points and planes:

" Dave, that looks like a Octapus having sex with a bag pipe "

Mark,

Thanks for good presentation and I am looking forward to seeing new tool-axis strategies in R20. Thanks to DS team.

I can see that MPFC will definitely save nc-programming time. Great job Patrick.

Gentlemen,

Thanks to DS and everyone who participated in today's web session. I hope you found it productive and informative. I thought it went well. It is hard to judge the audience's reaction to these types of presentations since you cant see them.

The session was recorded with audio and video. Amy of COE hq told me that it should be made available in the Ask the Experts archives shortly. I'll post here when it becomes available. Usually it takes a few days, up to a few weeks before it becomes available to the users.

Mark,

Thanks for great presentation. You were very prepared, and I learned a lot. Yes it was very productive and informative. I understand this function, thanks to the combination of your setup and analysis, followed by Dassault demonstration.

My conclusion is .... I WANT IT.!!!!

"ROBUST" MPFC DRIVE WITH LESS GEOMETRY CREATION

The biggest thing I saw what how 'ROBUST" MPFC was, to drive CRAPPY surfaces. That alone makes it worth having.

MARKETING AND JUSTIFICATION

I see the ability to drive CRAPPY surfaces, and less geo picks, and the method I will use to try to justify taking another look at this module. the old battle of go with what you know, VS, newer better faster.

A more "ROBUST" MAFC ??

I would also like to see those new algorithms put into MAFC, since even if 80% can be machined with MPFC, once it is mature and fully developed, that still leaves 20% that needs to be machined with MAFC I wonder if this is possible in the future

FOLLOWING UP ON CORNER DETAILING.

Detailing 5-axis corners, does require MAFC, and a TREMENDOUS HELP, would be if we could create blank templates for MAFC, with local modifications turned on. As Bryan pointed out, many times, in driving corners, bombs out. What we all i think do, in this situation is to drive wall1 to wall 2. and GOLEFT wall 2. we do not drive the corner radii but use HSM filleting.

To explain: the corner that would be DS 2, in a three DS in a wall-ds1, corner-ds2 wall-ds3 situations, is not picked.. Every time when selecting just walls in the corner, you must set local modifications

FOLLOWING UP ON MULTIPLE FLOOR RAMP TRANSITIONS.

I am clad to see the MPFM drives all around walls with multiple floor levels. I see it important to ramp, to avoid dwell marks, by going close to vertical in these situations. More so in hard metals, as there is always deflection, and such moves can dig in a bit.

JOGGELS

It will be fun to test this to see the limits if MPFC, and to enhance it for the CATIA we will have tomorrow

NURBS output.

FMI, along with many other shops, are retrofitting to the 840D. My friends at ICAM tell me that using NURBS output out of CATIA, is the best method. We are not doing this, but I hope to put this NURBS on the RADAR screen, for future consideration.

PARELM

Following the rulings of ruled surfaces, is the most accurate. Please consider this, when adding TLAXIS options.

RAPID FEEDS TRANSITION etc.

John Gates point is very valid. A distance dampener for air cutting can only help. I could see a transition feed chart as one possible implementation.
Example.
up to .25in machining feedrate *2
up to .50in machining feedrate *3
up to .1.0in machining feedrate rapid feed / 2
Lets kick that around.


REAL COMMUNICATION

The two way dialog is real communication, with each side both learning, and teaching. As always since we started working with Dassault directly, their eagerness to get feedback from we the users is welcome and appreciated by all

I felt that if there was more time, the question and answer period could have gone for easily another hour.

PARTICIPATION
I like the participation, but we need to keep in mind, that those that attended today's Webinar, are the few in an industry with thousands of programmers. Many are not interested, or have the time or inclination, or creativity to contribute. But those programmers will appreciate our efforts, and they have with each new release.

I WANT MORE
more dialog, more Webinar's more enhancements

THANKS

Thanks again to Mark, Patrick, and Philippe, COE and all you PAC-MEN.
I am sure that our friends at Dassault, thought this was a good expenditure of their time, and will continue this productive "ecosystem" with the free flow of ideas.

Best Regards
Dave Frank

Thanks for another informative presentation Mark!
Excellent job!

Great job, Mark- and thanks a lot Phillip, Patrick and everyone who participated. I have had the license for nearly a year now, and haven't used it at all...but that's going to change! It was looking very good on those parts, and if anything- it looks like a very good option for bad surfaces. Great!

I also like some of the things that came up. Here's where I see priority.

1) Create a new clearance feedrate called "Linking Clearance." This would only apply to the feedrate used between linking moves, and approach, Rapid, Retract, Machining, or Local could be used. Since there's already logic in Catia (obviously it knows when to use the "linking macro"...it seems they could also add logic that when it is in "linking mode" to use the new "linking clearance." While I really like John Gates idea (very logical) and that would probably take care of the problem, it seems like it would be easier to just add a linking clearance to the macro page, and give a lot of flexibility. Again, the logic is already halfway there. I'd like to see this added to ALL the MO's. Currently, I leave Clearance at RAPID and use the toolpath editor to edit the linking RAPID feedrates to machining or vice versa- whichever is fastest and easiest. Sometimes I'll purposely set CLEARANCE on to like 20 inches, then use the toolpath editor to delete all the moves way above the part, then use "connect toolpath" with a value of ZERO. Tricks of the trade...

2) Adding more toolaxis strategies. I'd like to see A) "combined tanto" where one can set a fanning distance, B) "along iso" because I often see surfaces built this way, and also rebuild them this way to control tool axis. Some may suggest also "normal to part", but I'm not sure I can think of it's usefullness in multi-pocket context context. I'm sure some of you can think of it and convince them. But I think A and B are most useful at the moment.

3) Continue to test on incrementally more complex parts and get it as robust as possible. So far, so good. I was a doubter, but becoming a believer. In a couple years, someone around here may be reinstating...

Wish I could have attended. I'll check out the recording.
Glad to see this is making progress.

Re Masking to avoid areas

When selecting the entire body as the part, I would like to know, if you can select the floor faces, and / or/ wall faces, to avoid pockets you wish to do manually.

Selecting Faces rather than making Masking sketches, or solids, will be a great time saver, if it is not muilt in already

Thanks
Dave

Hi
I would like to see some extra tool-axis control for 4-axis machines just as we can do it in MAFC using “Optional 4X plane”.
Thanks

I agree with what Samarinder is saying.

I have made some pertty wild airplane parts on 5-axis machines, including the B1 Bomber flap carrage assemblies.

Back in the good old days when men were men and airplanes were airplanes. Imagine 6 wing flap parts, from uml to lml, 3-6 feet long Fwd to aft, with a vertical H as the cross section.

This goes to what I have said, the more tlaxis control, the better.

Dave

Hi,
It would be nice if MAFC allows negative offset and/or capability to keep "Tool side on drive: On" when there is only 1 drive surface without using workarounds and extra geometry creation.

Samarinder,

You can use a -HDIA thick in local modifications. But yes, that is an extra step, and if on is not a option......

None of that geometry was needed for that cut. Just one plane could be created for the stop OUT (or just pick a plane on the part that is parallel to table and use an offset) and use the part geometry. Local Mod of ON or in this case, needing only 1 drive surface, just put a negative offset on drive. I do it all the time, using negative drive offsets in MAFC, especially in special cases when I want to cut radially FROM the wall out as opposed to TO the wall as default. So, if I want three .05 radial passes and want to go from the wall out, I'll switch the arrow and say offset on drive (with a 1" endmill) NEGATIVE 1.150 with 3 radial passes. I noticed in your other post about tool jumping you had created geometry to cut that fillet. Also, you were doing (opposite of what I would do) cutting the wall first with a NORMAL lead-in, instead of a arc (so not to mark the wall) and cutting out! Always work your way TO the wall, and the last pass should have an arc so you don't mark the part. First of all, Isoparametric CAN be set to cut that fillet WITHOUT any geometry. Just set clearance at feedrate and .000 and turn off linking. Then the tool would have just skipped over the holes. Secondly, reverse that path so you the last pass cuts the wall, not the first for proper machining technique. Thirdly, I would have tried using MAFC with fixed axis on that surface with the fillet as the PS with radial passes, and a finish pass radial pass with a radius lead-in. I do that all the time, for a toolpath that is just as I would have written every move intentionally. I use MAFC to cut lots of part features that most wouldn't think to use it on, because of the control and how well it works.

Lastly, if that part is aluminum, that rib top could probably just be cut in two depth cuts, by comparing the ratio of the height compared to the diameter of the end-mill. I usually use Multi-axis Curve machining for rail tops, but simple ones, I often use Isoparametric set to just 1 pass. For multiple depth cuts, I might use two MO's, one with an offset on the part surface. Whatever the material, I wouldn't have any radial cut at all on a rail-top like that one. The second radial cut would just be cutting air for wasted motion. If you want to zig-zag, just come off normal, go to depth, and cut back.

Bryan,

I've used that technique of a negative thick and flipping the arrow to cut FROM the wall. It works great. I wish someone would have told me about it because I have to admit I had to play around a bit to figure it out but then again, I probably learned more. Is there a trick like that for cutting FROM the floor (part surface)?

Thanks Dave, I learned that trick by studying a program written in NCL.

To answer your question, just use the DRIVE as your PS and the Part as your DS. Basically, you're swapping they're functions. Then use the negative offset trick to cut FROM the "floor" (which will be your drive surface).

I should have thought of that.

Thanks.

Folks,

Thanks for your input. However this motion doesnt have air cutting and I work for high production orientated job shops and last thing they would want to see any wasted motion in part programs since they bid on complex jobs very competitively.

There is a local fastfeed is in its place when positioning for next cut and keeping the tool down.

There are reasons I am not cutting zig-zag because my client doesnt want to see chips flying at their faces (if possible always cut to keep chips away from operator) .

Another main reason for not cutting zig-zag because it would produce bad cutting action (I dont want to go into details).

And cutting in multiple small .125" depths because my client has advised me what works best for his TR210 Haas machine.

Anyway I still think it would be a good enhancement where users don't have to learn all tricks or workarounds

Dave,

I just finished writing the part program for that part. And you are absolutely right I should have used negative in local mods but I was just throwing toolpaths using my MPs and didn't think about it And you know.. when you are under the pressure to meet the deadlines.

ps Bryan, thanks for pointing out normal lead in at the start of the cut. Again like I said, I apply lot of these toolpaths in catprocess from my MPs and there is 125-finish requirement so I try not to produce extra clean toolpaths. Regarding isparam machining on that area, I am using isoparam but with original geometry it is not possible to control the corner points. See attached pic.

However I am running this MO with check elements in covering mode and staying away from the walls. And you cannot use MAFC, in this particular case when fillets are tangent to drive surfaces unless you have some workarounds.

Usually I try contour driven first for this type of areas but it produced some jumps and extra restart in cutting with original geometry which, I believe, will be corrected in R20 as Deepak shows some good enhancement in other post. However there is a bit dangerous(for new users) trick/workaround where you define the safety plane below the bottom plane of cutting and set the clearance to 0 and keep part autolimit checked and adjust your direct skip length inisde the MO. But I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. You have to add some point to point motion before and after or modify the toolpath or add transitions only if you have machine in the resources.

Anyway I wanted to let you know that I did this part in 5 hours and wrote this post in 30 min. just to make sure that people don't think differently after reading your comments.

Happy holidays

Happy holidays gang

Anyone using Multipocket Multiaxis Flank Contouring?

Any feedback?

---

Dave Frank  *    Bell Helicopter *  Grand Prairie Texas

Advanced Computer Aided Manufacturing Systems Engineer

COE Product Co-Chairman, Digital Numerical Control