Test - How Fast is Your CAM System?

Without actually trying it, I think just about everyone can do the same type of thing as what you did fairly quick in most cam systems. The re-use-ability of the created tools is where things very and in my opinion the most important. The other thing for me is I ALWAYS define the holder for collision detection as well. In Gibbs do you see the holders as defined and are they used for collision detection? I recall MCX did not unless you used the few HSM operations (it had one default holder graphic for display). Otherwise as a workaround you'd model the tool and holder together. MCX users perhaps thats changed?

Bill:

That's the part I'd like to see timed. And the actual time difference between creating from scratch and searching & choosing from a CAM system that has a Tool Library.

The toolholder is not defined in an automatic sense. But like you say, you can model the tool & holder together (a simple line drawn outlining the radius, that is then swept 360 degrees to define any custom tool, & holder if you what), THEN it can used for collision detection. I virtually never use that feature for creating toolholders and haven't felt the need to do crash detection on holders. But then I wasn't doing 5 axis work where there was a real need for that since the tool & holder are zooming in at all kinds of angles. I don't recall crashing a toolholder for years. The chanciest situations are when doing 4th axis work with small tools near the chuck jaws. I usually physically hold the tool next to the jaws where the cuts are going to be made to check for clearance before putting the tool in the carousel.

. MCX users perhaps thats changed?

It has...albeit there is no holder library yet....and the option is not available on the older surfacing toolpaths....only the paths that use the new style "tree" toolpaths. Maybe by version X5 (hmmm XV?) they will get more support for collision detection.

Jon,

Thought you hated SolidWorks?

As a job shop, what happens with customers that supply CAD models from systems other than SolidWorks?

For what your doing with tools, creating them on the fly is better. But there's cases where you want information from the library. For example, you could call out a tool like this... .500 ball mill.

or you could call out a tool like this... .500 ball mill, .500 flute length, 3"long, edp#44567, niagra.

In the latter case a tool library starts to be worthwhile. But to just use a tool, screw the library. Just type in the damn diameter and your done.

However...

If you really had your act together, a person could maintain a tool library, so programmers can only pick tools in house.

I save all mine for later use with more details. I setup my tool list to output the Tool Description field instead of the actual tool name

Ex: The tool name (limited characters):DR.25X1.25LG The tool description looks like: DR, .25 DIA X 1.25 LG - CARB

I then follow that with actual attributes output to confirm I have the right tool. In the past, I've accidentally changed parameters without renaming which can have ghastly results.

So my final tchange output may look like below depending on shop determined "lingo":

(TOOL: 3) (DR, .25 DIA X 1.25 LG - CARB) (DIA:0.250 LTH:1.25 STKOUT:2.0 PNT ANG:135.000) (GAUGE LTH: 8.200)

Come to think of it, now I'm working from home I've put more time into my posts.

Just a general comment, I'm excited to see some real content being discussed here again!

Best, Steve

So now it's not the generic tool library that comes in the box, it's custom library's previously set up (then chosen) by the user?

You're saying you can see EVERYthing you need to know about the program from a simple canned video demo on one part?

Saw the same thing in other CAD/CAM packages 5-6 years ago. Which to me means you are promoting a program that's lagging others by years.

Didn't see them draw the part or show resulting tool path parameters nor the resulting g-code so no one could possibly deduce it's the fastest or even accurate for that matter.

I use a limited number of tools, but I do like you, and put the tool attributes right in the name. Makes it easy to pull out what's needed, quickly.