anafranil online
IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Changing the design of a part in Sprutcam
mayhugh1
post Mar 11 2009, 09:06 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12-December 07
Member No.: 49



Hi all,
This frequently comes up for me and I really don't know the correct way to handle it. Sometimes after I've generated the machine ops and simulated them I decide that I need to make a small change to the design of the part or the workpiece. ( use SolidWorks as my CAD and import its native format into Sprutcam.) Often the result is that I can no longer get a toolpath to be generated. I've tried to re-reference the part and workpiece and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. As a result I usually delete all the operations and start over with the new part and everything is then OK. Yesterday I was running a very complex 4 axis indexed part with 18 different operations on 6 sides of a box within a cylindrical workpiece. After running the first 4 operations I noticed the intermediate part looked strange and didn't hardly match the simulated results at that stage. I've never seen this before and thought something had gone wrong with the machine and so I spent several hours checking it out - no problem. I rebooted everything and ran a second part and got exactly the same results. I then spent several hours going over the g-code looking for areas in the g-code that might have caused the problem(s). I saw several that didn't match the simulation. I then remembered that I had made slight changes to the part and workpiece after the machining operations were set up. Since the toolpaths seemed to build OK and the simulation looked as expected I thought build 5.5 was handling changes better than I'd experienced before. I was trying to avoid deleting and re-doing all the machining operations as I usually do since I had invested several hours invested in that original work and thought I was happy with it. So I tried re-referencing the workpiece and part in each of the 18 operations and re-compiled the g-code. It certainly changed and it seemed to change in the areas that had discrepencies with the simulation. I have't run the new part yet since this part is being machined from monel and I only have enough for one the one part which I need. So, what I am asking is if it is possible to change a part or workpiece by deleting the originals and re-importing new ones after the machining operations are set up. And, if so, what else do I need to do to straighten out the workflow? Re-referencing may be working on this part but it hasn't always for me in the past. Also, I'm really confused that the simulation doesn't seem to be intimately tied to the CLDATA in the way the g-code is. Another confusing issue that I frequently see is that bits and pieces of workpiece are sometimes left untouched in the toolpath of the simulation and their character can sometimes even change from run-to-run or can depend upon how the run is initiated. I think it might be confusing to a new user that by default there is no indication of what workpiece or part is being used in each maching operation as they appear to be empty unless the user puts something in there. And when the new user tries to enter the workpiece the default is the "workpiece of the previous operation" instead of the rest or machining result of the previous operation. Sorry for the long winded rant but I would really like to know how to best handle design changes. - Terry


--------------------
Terry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Live
post Mar 11 2009, 02:09 PM
Post #2


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 10-February 09
Member No.: 2,767



QUOTE (mayhugh1 @ Mar 11 2009, 12:06 PM) *
Hi all,
This frequently comes up for me and I really don't know the correct way to handle it. Sometimes after I've generated the machine ops and simulated them I decide that I need to make a small change to the design of the part or the workpiece. ( use SolidWorks as my CAD and import its native format into Sprutcam.) Often the result is that I can no longer get a toolpath to be generated. I've tried to re-reference the part and workpiece and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. As a result I usually delete all the operations and start over with the new part and everything is then OK. Yesterday I was running a very complex 4 axis indexed part with 18 different operations on 6 sides of a box within a cylindrical workpiece. After running the first 4 operations I noticed the intermediate part looked strange and didn't hardly match the simulated results at that stage. I've never seen this before and thought something had gone wrong with the machine and so I spent several hours checking it out - no problem. I rebooted everything and ran a second part and got exactly the same results. I then spent several hours going over the g-code looking for areas in the g-code that might have caused the problem(s). I saw several that didn't match the simulation. I then remembered that I had made slight changes to the part and workpiece after the machining operations were set up. Since the toolpaths seemed to build OK and the simulation looked as expected I thought build 5.5 was handling changes better than I'd experienced before. I was trying to avoid deleting and re-doing all the machining operations as I usually do since I had invested several hours invested in that original work and thought I was happy with it. So I tried re-referencing the workpiece and part in each of the 18 operations and re-compiled the g-code. It certainly changed and it seemed to change in the areas that had discrepencies with the simulation. I have't run the new part yet since this part is being machined from monel and I only have enough for one the one part which I need. So, what I am asking is if it is possible to change a part or workpiece by deleting the originals and re-importing new ones after the machining operations are set up. And, if so, what else do I need to do to straighten out the workflow? Re-referencing may be working on this part but it hasn't always for me in the past. Also, I'm really confused that the simulation doesn't seem to be intimately tied to the CLDATA in the way the g-code is. Another confusing issue that I frequently see is that bits and pieces of workpiece are sometimes left untouched in the toolpath of the simulation and their character can sometimes even change from run-to-run or can depend upon how the run is initiated. I think it might be confusing to a new user that by default there is no indication of what workpiece or part is being used in each maching operation as they appear to be empty unless the user puts something in there. And when the new user tries to enter the workpiece the default is the "workpiece of the previous operation" instead of the rest or machining result of the previous operation. Sorry for the long winded rant but I would really like to know how to best handle design changes. - Terry


Hi mayhugh1,

You're right. SprutCAM does not work well when design changes lead to changes in the number of the part faces.
When SprutCAM imports a SolidWorks part it set to the part faces names based on their order number. All references
in a Job Assignment of an operation use these automatically generated names. So if you change design of a part and
the faces number in the changed part is not the same as the faces number in the previously designed part,
all references in Job Assignments become wrong. You must check every operation and reassign its Job Assignment
if it is incorrect.

But if design changes are small, e.g. dimensional changes, and the faces number does not change too, everything must be allright.
After reimporting the part the toolpath of all operation should be reseted automatically. If this is not so, try to
switch to the 3D Model tab and than return back to the Machining mode. The toolpath should be reseted.
After that, inspect every operation Job Assignment for correctness and regenerate the toolpath.

In the roadmap of SprutCAM stays the task to redesign the SolidWorks addin to solve your problem. The new
addin will import stitched solid models with persistent entities identifiers instead of a soup of distinct faces withoud any identifiers.
I think the problem will be solved during this year.

Best regards. Sorry for inconvinience sad.gif.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djb
post Mar 13 2009, 04:26 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 12-December 07
From: USA
Member No.: 51



what about exporting your opps creating a new sprutcam file and importing the opps and assigning faces etc. At least you shoulnt have to reset your basic opp parameters?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th December 2018 - 10:38 PM