Vericut Force Optimization

[JParis]

Is anyone using the Force Optimization module?

I am curious, once you have your machining parameters set, do the resultant changes actually work at the machine?

Do you find yourself having to turn things back down?

Does it work not only on the screen but in reality at the machine?

It is not a cheap module and I want to get some real world thoughts.

[YoDoug]

We had the same questions when we looked at it. Specifically, I was concerned about cutting tool geo and performance. We all know that not all endmills are equal. How much testing does it take when a new endmill brand is chosen and would we have to go back and modify hundreds of programs.

We ended up going with TMAC from Caron Eng in our mills. 4 of 6 have it installed and the others are on order. We target around ten of our common tools in each machine. We see 20%-40% reduction in roughing times with the adaptive feed rate. Ultimately the decision was made because TMAC is live spindle monitoring and it can detect broken tools, part misloads, part popping out of fixtures, etc. It is a little more money because it is a separate install for each machine, but we have had $30K spindles blown and very expensive covers destroyed from operator misloads of parts or parts popping out of fixtures from dull tools. We also have the spindle vibration sensors. We use those to monitor some finishing tools and the chip fans. A broken blade on a chip fan running unattended at night can blow out ceramic spindle bearings in a single shift. the vibration sensor catches that now.

[JParis]

We ended up going with TMAC from Caron Eng in our mills. 4 of 6 have it installed and the others are on order. We target around ten of our common tools in each machine. We see 20%-40% reduction in roughing times with the adaptive feed rate. Ultimately the decision was made because TMAC is live spindle monitoring and it can detect broken tools, part misloads, part popping out of fixtures, etc. It is a little more money because it is a separate install for each machine, but we have had $30K spindles blown and very expensive covers destroyed from operator misloads of parts or parts popping out of fixtures from dull tools. We also have the spindle vibration sensors. We use those to monitor some finishing tools and the chip fans. A broken blade on a chip fan running unattended at night can blow out ceramic spindle bearings in a single shift. the vibration sensor catches that now.

Thanks Doug.

Here that kind of solution would be prohibitive.  Currently have 27 HMC's on the floor and 18 more on order. A per    spindle solution would be a costing nightmare....

We don't tend to vary from what we use for tooling...anything new would likely be introduced sparingly and only in certain places.

[YoDoug]

Thanks Doug.

Here that kind of solution would be prohibitive.  Currently have 27 HMC's on the floor and 18 more on order. A per    spindle solution would be a costing nightmare....

We don't tend to vary from what we use for tooling...anything new would likely be introduced sparingly and only in certain places.

We thought the price would be prohibitive as well, but depending on your shop rate you could easily have per machine payback of the option in 6-12 months. The other thing is it is all implemented at the control so setup techs and decent operators can do the implementation, versus you having to run hundreds of programs through Vericut.

[YoDoug]

Another unconsidered aspect of spindle monitoring is tooling savings. You start using all the tools to the same wear point as measured by spindle load. Versus operators eyeballing the tools and making and objective decision. Or even worse, just changing the inserts at the beginning of every shift because thats how they been told to do it.

[JParis]

We use Tool life Management....and where the vast majority of what we cut is 6061 or 7075 tool life is generally very good.

With what I am looking at for a cost, all the spindles, even short $ per is going to cost me WELL beyond getting Simulation & Force....and they're already choking on that cost. And with the way we bring machines in & out..I see a headache.

I keep forward on my current path

[Here's Johnny!]

I would love to try the force module to see the difference.

Saw this a while back.



https://youtube.com/watch?v=16uQqTCXIWg&si=nUqdfJQTI8TRNADy

[mkd]

Small control upgrade for a Heidenhain control to do much of the big stuff listed here. google AFC ACC along with DCM

[JParis]

AFter years of trying to get Vericut in here, on Friday the wall finally came down. Purchased Vericut & Force Optimization...PO was cut and sent right after the demo.

YaY!!!

[mkd]

Hope they can verify the code. Vericut can't do advanced 5 axis stuff, and don't have the source code for all (any?) controllers

[JParis]

Hope they can verify the code. Vericut can't do advanced 5 axis stuff, and don't have the source code for all (any?) controllers

I dunno, sounds like a Heidenhain issue 

[gcode]

advanced 5 axis stuff

what do you mean by "advanced 5X stuff"
it emulates 5X code for our Okuma and Jobs gantrymill  "cough" Fanuc 31i "cough" just fine

[mkd]

what do you mean by "advanced 5X stuff"
it emulates 5X code for our Okuma and Jobs gantrymill  "cough" Fanuc 31i "cough" just fine

John already busted me on it. It's a Hiedenhain thing afaik. VC will interpret simple TCPM good enough. They don't have the source code (guess that's the reason) for the control to predict HH more advance FUNCTION TCPM with or without defined planes output in vector format. This is where digital twins from the Control maker separate themselves. Anything else is an overpriced video game. TROLOLOLOL
 THis is my assessment of my experience recently with going 12 rounds with VC support. The finally stopped responding in failure. Love to be proven wrong.
 More detail; even with now obsolete 530 controls, you can probe the top face of a part to define it's plane with a plane command then run a regular full 5 axis program based on that plane. So the control might end up tweaking the C axis 60 degrees (and some little B rotation) on one workpiece then 80 degrees on the next. VC cant seem to put everything together to make that happen. Laziness on the support side or inability? I don't know.

[CNCAppsJames]

John already busted me on it. It's a Hiedenhain thing afaik. VC will interpret simple TCPM good enough. They don't have the source code (guess that's the reason) for the control to predict HH more advance FUNCTION TCPM with or without defined planes output in vector format. This is where digital twins from the Control maker separate themselves. Anything else is an overpriced video game. TROLOLOLOL
 THis is my assessment of my experience recently with going 12 rounds with VC support. The finally stopped responding in failure. Love to be proven wrong.
 More detail; even with now obsolete 530 controls, you can probe the top face of a part to define it's plane with a plane command then run a regular full 5 axis program based on that plane. So the control might end up tweaking the C axis 60 degrees (and some little B rotation) on one workpiece then 80 degrees on the next. VC cant seem to put everything together to make that happen. Laziness on the support side or inability? I don't know.

I you want to simulate that, I would think you would need to tilt and rotate the coordinate system.

When I have large numbers in G54.4 (WSEC) and I am concerned with collisions, I'll translate, tilt and rotate in CAMplete to make sure I'm good.

Same end result. Maybe not the way you want to do it, or the way you think it should be done, but, that would be effective regardless, which at the end of the day should be what you're after.

[Here's Johnny!]

JP how is the Force module working out? I am getting it added to my license, looking for some feedback before I jump fully into it blindly.