cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Summary of cutcom issue and another question on cutcom.

Highlighted
Newbie

Summary of cutcom issue and another question on cutcom.

Hi Everyone,

My apologies for not getting this out sooner, I have been busy to say the
least. Thank you for all who responded.

I tried many of the suggestions, but what ended up fixing this problem was
nothing with the post. We went from a TANGENT_LEAD_STEP to a
NORMAL_LEAD_STEP. Once we did that we no longer got an error from the
controller.

This leads me to my next question...
We have been having this discussion here now for a while as to what is the
correct way to do cutcom. This is mainly on this Cincinnatti 5 axis and 2
HAAS 3 axis machines we have.

Is one correct or incorrect when using TANGENT_LEAD_STEP vs.
NORMAL_LEAD_STEP? Is is due to the situation that you need to machine?
The reason I ask this is sometimes it seems we have to use
TANGENT_LEAD_STEP and other times we have to use NORMAL_LEAD_STEP. And we
end up trying one then the machine errors out, so we try the other and is
works. Then the next time it is totally reverse. Am I missing something
else?

I will post the results.

Thank you,

Jeff Voegele
Solar Turbines
619 544-2820
1 REPLY 1
Highlighted

Re: Summary of cutcom issue and another question on cutcom.

Jeff,

When profiling you have to understand that when you say lead in/out 'yes',
you are implicitly creating a lead radius - even if the radius is zero.

Therefore, if your toolpath is a straight line, and you want the tool to
move perpendicular (normal) to it and the radius is set to 0, you need to
add a tangent lead step value. Imagine if there were a radius, the tangent
portion would be the straight leg from where to tool plunges to where the
arc starts. The arc is controlled by the lead_radius value. The normal
value is applied at a normal angle to this radius, whose angle is defined by
the entry/exit arc value. When you apply the tangent lead step value you
are in effect creating a normal (perpendicular) lead step to the tool path.
If you apply a normal lead step with no radius value, the tool comes down
and starts on the toolpath, moves back up to the end of the toolpath a
distance equal to normal lead step and then reverses 180deg and continues
down the toolpath, creating an angular gouge equal to your cutcom register
value for that tool.

When you're creating trajectories, the situation is reversed. Since you can
create a normal or tangent approach, no radius is involved.....unless you
use a lead in/out motion. Using normal in this case is exactly as it
appears, a move perpendicular to the start of the toolpath. Tangent creates
an approach to the toolpath that is more like an overtravel.

Why this messes up your machine is beyond me. It may screw up your part,
but the machine should handle it. Perhaps it is because you have a radius
value with no tangent lead step, and no machine can apply the cutcom value
while moving in an arc, only linearly.

Regards



"Jeff Voegele" <-> wrote in message
news:54532@manuf...
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> My apologies for not getting this out sooner, I have been busy to say the
> least. Thank you for all who responded.
>
> I tried many of the suggestions, but what ended up fixing this problem was
> nothing with the post. We went from a TANGENT_LEAD_STEP to a
> NORMAL_LEAD_STEP. Once we did that we no longer got an error from the
> controller.
>
> This leads me to my next question...
> We have been having this discussion here now for a while as to what is the
> correct way to do cutcom. This is mainly on this Cincinnatti 5 axis and 2
> HAAS 3 axis machines we have.
>
> Is one correct or incorrect when using TANGENT_LEAD_STEP vs.
> NORMAL_LEAD_STEP? Is is due to the situation that you need to machine?
> The reason I ask this is sometimes it seems we have to use
> TANGENT_LEAD_STEP and other times we have to use NORMAL_LEAD_STEP. And we
> end up trying one then the machine errors out, so we try the other and is
> works. Then the next time it is totally reverse. Am I missing something
> else?
>
> I will post the results.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jeff Voegele
> Solar Turbines
> 619 544-2820
>
>
Announcements