Mastercam roughing leaving remnants in Camplete

[PAnderson]

Morning everyone. What a cluster with AD now owning Camplete. Even as a distributor of Camplete, I have to go through the AD portal and I don't have time for that. My Mastercam roughing tool path is leaving remnants floating out in the open and my next tool is colliding with them. Does anyone know how to get rid of these before running the next tool? I know this isn't strictly a Mastercam question but I also know a lot of you here use Camplete.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Paul

[Jeff]

What Mastercam roughing path are you using?
I know Dynamic facmilling with a bullnose cutter will do that at times.

[gcode]

I know Dynamic facmilling with a bullnose cutter will do that at times.

making your stepover 60% of the flat on the bottom of the tool should fix that
stepover  = (tool diameter - (corner radius/2) x .6)

[MIL-TFP-41]

Are you using Camplete for stock removal simulation? And are you talking about what in Mastercam verify would be "Remove Chips" (pieces of stock that are not attached to the part anymore?)

[PAnderson]

Are you using Camplete for stock removal simulation? And are you talking about what in Mastercam verify would be "Remove Chips" (pieces of stock that are not attached to the part anymore?)

Yes, that is what I was looking for. But I think I got rid of the problem by roughing out the pocket .300" deeper. The tool that came after this is what caused the remnant because the previous tool did not go deep enough. It's a closed impellor and roughs from both sides to open up the space.

Thanks

[PAnderson]

Just an update for those that care. In the Pallet View tab at the bottom left, there is your stock settings. In the Display area, there is a button called Remove Detached Stock. This will remove the floating stock remnants. I did not do this this time. I went a little deeper with my roughing tool and that cleaned up the stock for the tool path that was leaving the remnants.

Paul

[CNCAppsJames]

I generally do not use CAMplete for the stok removal feature. It's SLOW! It is a cubic mesh representation vs. a triangulated mesh representation of the stock. 

Stock can look "furry", thus not giving an accurate representation of what you will find at the machine. I use my CAM system's verification because I KNOW what I'm getting path to path out of CAMplete.

JM2CFWIW

[crazy^millman]

I generally do not use CAMplete for the stok removal feature. It's SLOW! It is a cubic mesh representation vs. a triangulated mesh representation of the stock.

Stock can look "furry", thus not giving an accurate representation of what you will find at the machine. I use my CAM system's verification because I KNOW what I'm getting path to path out of CAMplete.

JM2CFWIW

Sorry I know how much you love CAMPLETE, but this is where other CAV shine since I have situations where I need to know the NC program is doing what I expect and need to prove back to companies the process is solid. NASA requires proof from the CAV it is doing what you programmed. Without it they will not consider some parts flight worthy.

[CNCAppsJames]

Sorry I know how much you love CAMPLETE, but this is where other CAV shine since I have situations where I need to know the NC program is doing what I expect and need to prove back to companies the process is solid. NASA requires proof from the CAV it is doing what you programmed. Without it they will not consider some parts flight worthy.

When the situation "requires" it as you mentioned it, I'll use it. But unless I HAVE to I don't. I can say with Absolute certainty that NASA does not always need proof. That may be a requirement from outside vendors, but internally it is not a requirement.

[neurosis]

When the situation "requires" it as you mentioned it, I'll use it. But unless I HAVE to I don't. I can say with Absolute certainty that NASA does not always need proof. That may be a requirement from outside vendors, but internally it is not a requirement.

We've made quite a few parts for defense that have ended up in outer space.  We've never done anything for NASA that I know of.  I have no idea what the requirements are for NASA.

[CNCAppsJames]

We've made quite a few parts for defense that have ended up in outer space.  We've never done anything for NASA that I know of.  I have no idea what the requirements are for NASA.

I've not seen anything any more stringent than any other aerospace part and NASA has been a customer of ours for a LONG time. I've not programmed parts "externally" (as in as a vendor) for them I've only supported their programmers/operators with some light 5-Axis programing training , Machine Operation and CAMplete.

[mkd]

I haven't made much of anything for outer space, my stuff just ends up on Mars.
 Lol getting into a dic swinging contest🤣🤣🤣🤣😜😜🙊🙊🤷🤷

[crazy^millman]

When the situation "requires" it as you mentioned it, I'll use it. But unless I HAVE to I don't. I can say with Absolute certainty that NASA does not always need proof. That may be a requirement from outside vendors, but internally it is not a requirement.

Okay every place I have dealt with that deal directly with them has required it. Should that be the case I don't think so, but we all deal with so many different customers with different needs can easily have those that don't have that same requirement. I also like the fact in Vericut and NCSIMUL I can build my own machines and controls. Granted it can take sometime to get some dialed in, but it is rewarding. Besides CG Tech is not pushing the ICAM process on to people for posting code trying to compete against CAMPLETE so there is that. 

[CNCAppsJames]

I also like the fact in Vericut and NCSIMUL I can build my own machines and controls. Granted it can take sometime to get some dialed in, but it is rewarding.

I DO wish I could do that with CAMplete. Can't have everything. Vericut doesn't post so there's that too.

Plusses and minuses everywhere.

Okay every place I have dealt with that deal directly with them has required it.

Weird... Seriously weird.

[crazy^millman]

I DO wish I could do that with CAMplete. Can't have everything. Vericut doesn't post so there's that too.

Plusses and minuses everywhere.



Weird... Seriously weird.

They are now offering a ICAM package to post code from any CAM software.