Productivity+

[Rstewart]

So I have a meeting with the Renishaw guy next Monday.  We have about a dozen machining centers with Renishaw probes (DMG MORI 5-axis). All but 1 or 2 are running a Siemans controller, other Fanuc.  Our management likes the idea of us programming probing routines to post in the machining code for In-Process.  Currently we have a problem with the guys on the floor not checking their work before parts go to final insp.  Hopefully this can somewhat take place of our manual In-Process insp.

Is there anything specific I need to be questioning the salesman on?  I'm sure someone here uses this software.

BTW these goobers use SurfCam boooo

[JParis]

One thing I learned while exploring this was, even though our machines came with probes and the associated macros, what the Productivity+ uses for macros is different than what comes with the probing already in the machine.

As such, I started looking at the Cimco probing instead, as they will use what we already have in the machines.

We haven't pulled the trigger on it yet and I have other high dollar upgrades that I deem more important to implement first.

Just my experience.

[Rstewart]

One thing I learned while exploring this was, even though our machines came with probes and the associated macros, what the Productivity+ uses for macros is different than what comes with the probing already in the machine.

As such, I started looking at the Cimco probing instead, as they will use what we already have in the machines.

We haven't pulled the trigger on it yet and I have other high dollar upgrades that I deem more important to implement first.

Just my experience.

Yep, I hear ya.  In a past life when I was programming, we had MasterCam.  We did purchase the Cimco seat and it was Great!  No go with Cimco and smurfcam.
They keep saying they're gonna buy NX, but that's been going on for two years.

Productivity+ can be justified by lowering the backlog in metrology, or inspector time.  Top management places top priority on the inspection/Quality team.

[JParis]

Productivity+ can be justified by lowering the backlog in metrology, or inspector time.  Top management places top priority on the inspection/Quality team.

I'm sure you already know this part...

Hopefully your tolerances are not too demanding. In machine probing can do a lot, though asking it to measure dimensions that are tight, it's not the probing that's the biggest impediment, it's the machine itself.

If you're looking to do a couple of reasonable features to ascertain a part being good enough, that can work but if they(management) are expecting full blown machine probing to replace an actual first article, they are expecting too much from it.

[Rstewart]

I'm sure you already know this part...

Hopefully your tolerances are not too demanding. In machine probing can do a lot, though asking it to measure dimensions that are tight, it's not the probing that's the biggest impediment, it's the machine itself.

If you're looking to do a couple of reasonable features to ascertain a part being good enough, that can work but if they(management) are expecting full blown machine probing to replace an actual first article, they are expecting too much from it.

Yes sir, I totally understand that.  We're literally having trouble with guys removing the part out of the machine when pockets are too small or depths aren't to depth lol.  The whole idea is when the part comes out of the machine, we'll have a decent idea it's Ready for Final insp. 
We do so many NCR reworks...equals $$$$

If we can keep the parts off the CMM for in-process, it'll be a Win.

[YoDoug]

We have Productivity+. We don't inspect every part in the machine because it would add too much time. Our parts are all very similar, just different variations for different engines, cars, etc. We use common tooling to make the parts. So what we do is check a handful of parts in each machine that run daily for the common finishing tools. We tried having it alarm on out of tolerance parts and it just ended up with the unattended machines sitting all night. Also we have some very specific features that are blended from one op to the next. We started allowing Productivity+ to update tool offsets to keep these features/tools cutting right. I did have to use the custom macro portion of Productivity+ to put limits on how much it allows the tool offset to be updated before it calls an alarm. Since implementing we have had great results with the features in question. There are 5 tools that have critical relationships for the finishing features. Before adding Prod+ the operators would keep "chasing their tales" with offsets until they were all out of whack. We also calibrate the probes daily in the schedule with an artifact mounted in the machine. We also use different calibration variables for the Prod+ versus the Inspection+ macros. The operators like to manually probe with the door open so the probe moves slower. for this reason we needed two sets of calibration data.

Edit: the reason why we went to automatically updating offsets is the operators were not regularly checking the inspection reports from Prod+ and continuing to run out of tol parts.

[JakeL]

We have Productivity+. We don't inspect every part in the machine because it would add too much time. Our parts are all very similar, just different variations for different engines, cars, etc. We use common tooling to make the parts. So what we do is check a handful of parts in each machine that run daily for the common finishing tools. We tried having it alarm on out of tolerance parts and it just ended up with the unattended machines sitting all night. Also we have some very specific features that are blended from one op to the next. We started allowing Productivity+ to update tool offsets to keep these features/tools cutting right. I did have to use the custom macro portion of Productivity+ to put limits on how much it allows the tool offset to be updated before it calls an alarm. Since implementing we have had great results with the features in question. There are 5 tools that have critical relationships for the finishing features. Before adding Prod+ the operators would keep "chasing their tales" with offsets until they were all out of whack. We also calibrate the probes daily in the schedule with an artifact mounted in the machine. We also use different calibration variables for the Prod+ versus the Inspection+ macros. The operators like to manually probe with the door open so the probe moves slower. for this reason we needed two sets of calibration data.

Edit: the reason why we went to automatically updating offsets is the operators were not regularly checking the inspection reports from Prod+ and continuing to run out of tol parts.

What kind of tolerances you holding with blending the tools? Less than .0001 step?

The higher ups had me to look at "deburring" one of the parts we run hundreds of. I went in with a lollipop tool and the deburr toolpath and went nuts, and got really nice results. A week later they asked me to look at it again. Turns out by "deburr" they meant fix blend issues. I told them that was something the machinist should be monitoring and adjusting. That's not what they wanted to hear.

So now I'm thinking about doing something similar to what you described. Probe certain areas of the part and make adjustments to the height and diameter offsets. I would like to have all the tools blend within .0001 or better, but wasn't sure if that was realistic.

 

[YoDoug]

What kind of tolerances you holding with blending the tools? Less than .0001 step?

The higher ups had me to look at "deburring" one of the parts we run hundreds of. I went in with a lollipop tool and the deburr toolpath and went nuts, and got really nice results. A week later they asked me to look at it again. Turns out by "deburr" they meant fix blend issues. I told them that was something the machinist should be monitoring and adjusting. That's not what they wanted to hear.

So now I'm thinking about doing something similar to what you described. Probe certain areas of the part and make adjustments to the height and diameter offsets. I would like to have all the tools blend within .0001 or better, but wasn't sure if that was realistic.

 

Not that close of tolerance for us. We leave .005 between rough and finish and that is one concern. The big concern is we use minimal stock thickness. A lot of parts start with .75" material and finish at .64". The walls are finished in the fist op barely skimming above the clamps. Then the second op chamfer blends to the wall finish from the first op. If they get the tool lengths off the chamfer leaves a sharp edge from the wall finish not being deep enough or the chamfer not being deep enough.

However, looking at the reports from the parts that are probed, under normal operation they typically hold .0002 to .0005 on the measured surfaces.

[mkd]

LoL at you boys having to rely on a third party probe (bodge) solution.
 Renishaw? hahahahahahahahahahah

[Rstewart]

LoL at you boys having to rely on a third party probe (bodge) solution.
 Renishaw? hahahahahahahahahahah

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  There's just not enough time capacity for someone to continually hand jam macros.  This software will hopefully run with the programmer to automate probing for desired features.
Then again it could be a crap solution, who knows? 
The company doesn't want to invest in fixturing components, but will lay it down to 'up productivity' at all costs.
Sounds bout right I'm guessing...

[mkd]

Now that my trolling is over, all this effort for one fanuc machine?
why not just swap it out for one with the same controller?

[Aaron]

Your integration on the machine side will determine your success with it.

Unless your reseller has done a few integrations of P+ on your specific machine, definitely spring to have a Renishaw Rep do the integration.   As mentioned, P+ uses different variables/macros/calibration data than the standard Inspection+/GoProbe Macros your machine has on it.  In Renishaw's own words, it's because they can't rely on I+ being unmodified on the machine, there's been too much customization so they can't trust that they would output from P+ can just run.

The interface side of P+ is pretty simple, and it's a great to be able to really simply make If/Then/Else kind of logic. If this hole is too small, add 80% of the difference to your tool offset, etc.  You can go crazy with custom macros and outputs like Doug has done.   I genuinely believe there's not much that can compete with it in the common market.

The other end of spectrum is that's WAYYYY easier/cheaper to integrate is something like Cimco Probing.  These simpler versions rely on you pasting in the probing macros (or trusting that you can run the off-the-shelf I+/GoProbe style macros).  They make it trivial to pick up offsets, check diameters, etc., but they'll start to fall down a bit if you're trying to build a up a logic tree to follow. 

[Rstewart]

Now that my trolling is over, all this effort for one fanuc machine?
why not just swap it out for one with the same controller?

I'm completely lost by your comment.... 
Like 10 Siemens controllers and one or two are Fanuc.  This is for all those machines.

Meeting with some more Renishaw guys next week hopefully.

[mkd]

I'm completely lost by your comment.... 
Like 10 Siemens controllers and one or two are Fanuc.  This is for all those machines.

Meeting with some more Renishaw guys next week hopefully.

So you're integrating renishaw on Siemens instead of using native cycles?