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

Community Tip - Did you get an answer that solved your problem? Please mark it as an Accepted Solution so others with the same problem can find the answer easily. X

"Cannot perform NC Check on this type of manufacturing NC Sequence" message

KenFarley
21-Topaz I

"Cannot perform NC Check on this type of manufacturing NC Sequence" message

Creo 4.0 M090

I'm doing some 3-axis milling, simple 2D arc and line motions, and standard pecking drill cycles, etc. A strange thing is happening, apparently due to the part models involved. Here's a brief rundown of what I did.

A. Added reference model and workpiece.

B. Defined some milling sequences for those two parts.

C. NC-Check works fine, shows me a simulation of the material removal.

D. Added another reference model and its workpiece. Basically the next stage of manufacture of the part and the results of the previous steps.

E. Defined a milling sequence and some drilling cycles for the two new parts.

F. Now, NC-Check gives the message in the subject line above, not only for these new cycles and the operation containing them, but also for the previously completed sequences (in steps A and B).

 

So, the question is, what in the world have I done wrong? I've had this problem with specific sequences when I've had a cutter that is too small, or when there is a difference in accuracy between the parts or the manufacturing assembly, but all my accuracies in this case are the exact same value. I'm not doing anything sophisticated, just simple cutting around a shape defined by lines and arcs. How can adding more reference and workpiece models prevent simulation of previously defined sequences?

 

Luckily, since they're simple sequences, playing them without material removal simulation is good enough to see that they'll run okay, but I'm going to need to do some complicated surface milling on this stuff and I'd like to be able to verify that my programs are okay.

 

Anyone out there had this kind of fun before?

 

P.S. Sorry, can't upload models - proprietary and government related project.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

I tried a file of just one part and one work system, and the same stuff happened. I definitely suspect the model files are causing the troubles, I just don't know why. I switched my verification type from NCCHECK via the config.pro command:

nccheck_type moduleworks

And I can now simulate material removal with the same file. I've used NCCHECK for decades and like its color scheme, etc. but I guess it might be time to try a new trick. Hopefully I'll be able to tell if one of my cuts is doing something stupid (Like accidentally having a right-side lead-in where a left-side is needed, etc.), but I'll have to keep trying it out.

NCCHECK has always been a fickle friend. It will often decide that a particular combination of things is not acceptable, but doesn't give the slightest hint of the why/what/where of it. Many of the things I've figured out about it in the past are only a result of my own stubbornness in demanding that it do my bidding.

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2

Good morning!! I don’t program multiple parts in one window. I program each individual part in a separate file then manually edit and combine the programs. So, not much experience with how you are programming. Did you try gouge check? That will verify if you have a problem or not. Sometimes corrupt files can be a problem also.

Thanks!

Mike

I tried a file of just one part and one work system, and the same stuff happened. I definitely suspect the model files are causing the troubles, I just don't know why. I switched my verification type from NCCHECK via the config.pro command:

nccheck_type moduleworks

And I can now simulate material removal with the same file. I've used NCCHECK for decades and like its color scheme, etc. but I guess it might be time to try a new trick. Hopefully I'll be able to tell if one of my cuts is doing something stupid (Like accidentally having a right-side lead-in where a left-side is needed, etc.), but I'll have to keep trying it out.

NCCHECK has always been a fickle friend. It will often decide that a particular combination of things is not acceptable, but doesn't give the slightest hint of the why/what/where of it. Many of the things I've figured out about it in the past are only a result of my own stubbornness in demanding that it do my bidding.

Top Tags