Re: Anybody out there simulating their machine?
- From: Bill <johnsondick5@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 26, 1:50 am, "vinny" <vi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bill" <Kin...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Cliff" <Clhupr...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
You want to program in a machine-independant manner.
Then the post translates to any specific machine *that can make the
Not so wrong approach actually...
Over simplified explanation (very deep area):
In NX you have a module called Machine Tool Builder (free with cam btw)..
You create the kinematics there. You create the models as normal NX
assemblies with some MTB work. You then go to Machine View and select the
machine. Your mcs, geometry, operations, and tools are all children of the
machine. Since your working in assemblies they must be below the machine.
It is integrated into the part file. That said, you can start with the
generic machine then swap it later. The machine will attach to the mcs.
It's really easier to know which machine your going to be on first though.
I do program with no machine in mind unless it's 5 axis since we only
have one of those.
The system has verification and simulation. Simulation is machine
specific, you have to pick a machine file. I was just curious if that
technology is being used out there yet?
I try to run it and it goes all bonkers. Maybe I'm doing something wrong
na, can't be me, it has to be a bug in the software!
It's not as easy as Vericut to get a new machine built. Try the sample
files first. There are two types, the newer CSA turnkey style integrated
(and encrypted machine files) and the older MTB style which I use.
I wished I had a class in the Machine Tool Builder as I really enjoy
building them but have had to learn them the old on-the-fly method over
the years. They have a few samples as well on the GTAC download area also.
When set up it's pretty cool. Because it's running through the MTB post
(which is setup using Postbuilder), as it simulates it's running the gcode
(not cls). You can't interrogate the as cut like Vericut (yet) but works
well for showing complex axis moves. I like to use it for simulating
shrouded impellers as you see just how much axis rotation your creating
based on tool axis (Hermle very fast, Bosto, very slow).
Can UG do something like this?
In Mastercam I could use check surfaces to control things.
For instance, I am cutting a floor finished, but I'd like to stay away from
the wall. So I would make the wall face a check surf and leave stock on it.
This makes me think using a workpiece for the parent with the part in it
is not the way to go. Leave the stock block in the workpiece parent, but I
think I should select the part for each operation as I go. This would allow
me to select the part as faces, allowing me to remove any faces from the
part as needed to use for check surfs, etc?
Then I would only have one workpiece for the whole job. And have the
flexability to use the part as needed.
Is it standard to have a workpiece with the part and blank in it as the
You are correct, for complex parts, I only put the Blank in the
Workpiece. As you found, much more control.
- Prev by Date: Mitsubishi HA80 CS Servo Motor- Which drive to use
- Next by Date: Re: Areas Where Gibbscam Still Leads
- Previous by thread: Re: Anybody out there simulating their machine?
- Next by thread: Re: Anybody out there simulating their machine?