The Assimilation Continues

[TSmcam]

Is that a jab?  I feel like that's a jab.  

Jab? Hah, nah.

Its a whack with a stick ,  

[TSmcam]

All jokes aside thoughm with the way the software works, it really needs that information. However, you can certainly still make it work without it.

[Brian]

All jokes aside thoughm with the way the software works, it really needs that information. However, you can certainly still make it work without it.

Exactly! Otherwise, how do you distinguish between a 0.250" dia hole that can/should be drilled vs. the same diameter geometry that should be drilled+bored+reamed?

[Dylan Gondyke]

Right. The first step was to get that metadata into the hole. So now if you look at something like a Simple Hole choice, we have things like a Dowel Pin type for that hole, with different fit classes- press fit, nominal, clearance, transitional- so that toolpath automation can key into all this information in the future when you select that hole. Push manufacturing intent to the model, so that automation doesn't have to guess.

Anytime you get to a fork in the road where automation has to guess what you want, the value of that automation drops off a cliff. It's a big reason that things like prodrill/FBM/Autodrill all eventually stall out- you start stacking too many guesses, you have to examine the result too closely, and the process falls apart as a useful tool.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Push manufacturing intent to the model, so that automation doesn't have to guess.

Now, is that information coming from the model itself, or am I clicking around to define what all the holes are in Mastercam, and then saying "automate how I have defined these holes"? Maybe a combination?

Because we all know how engineers/part designers are at putting in effort, and relying on them to define a hole correctly so I can automate it will be a bottleneck, to say the least. It would be the same as relying on the imported model to program a unilateral tolerance from the drawing, so few of the models we get are actually nominal.

[Brian]

Things like this also seem to point up the importance of integrating design and mfg functions.

I'm not aware of any way of capturing this sort of info after going thru any sort of neutral interface STEP, Parasolid, etc)...wait, I spoke too soon! It looks like some flavors of STEP support this (though I guess I've just been getting AP203 from customers....all I ever "see" is geometric data).

Details?

[SuperHoneyBadger]

I'm not aware of any way of capturing this sort of info after going thru any sort of neutral interface STEP, Parasolid, etc)...wait, I spoke too soon! It looks like some flavors of STEP support this (though I guess I've just been getting AP203 from customers....all I ever "see" is geometric data).

Details?

STEP242 is movement in this direction, toward model based definition of parts. But as will all specs, its up to industry to use it effectively. That means the CAD/CAM suites offering the tools to bake the data in, and read the data; designers using these tools effectively; and CMM manufacturers importing the models properly with dimensions (our Mitutoyo trainer said never use the included dims, they usually suck).

The IDEA is that all the dimensions are in the model from inception to inspection, and you don't need an engineering print. Only time will tell if we can get there. I think it's a lot of fragmented parts trying to wokr toward a similar end right now. Ironically(for this thread), maybe it's the Sandviks of the world buying up large swaths of software and making them work together that can get us to the goal.

[JParis]

STEP242 is movement in this direction,

Considering ALL of the years this has been talked about it has so far gotten very little traction....last I had seen there hadn't been any update in the project in years...I think many consider it dead

[riverhunter]

the phrase "garbage in ... garbage out" rings true. 

some cad/cam packages have been using PMI for well over 10 yeas.  When the engineer puts in effort the results are awesome and the programming automation is impressive.  otherwise it becomes more a choose your own adventure kinda thing. 

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Considering ALL of the years this has been talked about it has so far gotten very little traction....last I had seen there hadn't been any update in the project in years...I think many consider it dead

I wasn't aware of that! Just thought it wasn't adopted YET. Pretty long in the tooth now, for sure. Is there any work on an open standard as of today then?

[Dylan Gondyke]

Now, is that information coming from the model itself, or am I clicking around to define what all the holes are in Mastercam, and then saying "automate how I have defined these holes"? Maybe a combination?

Because we all know how engineers/part designers are at putting in effort, and relying on them to define a hole correctly so I can automate it will be a bottleneck, to say the least. It would be the same as relying on the imported model to program a unilateral tolerance from the drawing, so few of the models we get are actually nominal.

Right now, this is allowing the hole to be tagged with this information within Mastercam. So if you create a solid hole, you can do a "dumb" hole with no metadata, or you could choose types that associate things like threads, fit class, etc behind it. Now that this capability exists, we can soon begin to translate hole information from imported models (if it exists) into metadata in Mastercam. So no matter where this info comes from in the future (created in Mastercam or extracted from imported models), you can use it to drive higher levels of automation somewhere in the product.

One of the examples I think is pertinent is when you receive a model with threaded holes modeled at tap diameter or at major diameter for whatever reason the designer needed, long before the model ever reached you. OK, great, I don't want or need to go physically change all these holes, but I do need to "tag" these as threaded holes with some info behind them. No one wants to be staring at a grid plate in Mastercam with a mix of thru-holes and threaded holes and trying to invent your own color scheme, notes, etc, copied from a print, to express that for anyone who is unlucky enough to have to open that file and tweak ops.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Right now, this is allowing the hole to be tagged with this information within Mastercam.

I like the idea behind this mechanism, for sure. Looking forward to trying it out, I make all my fixtures in Mastercam, so I'll be putting this through the paces for dowels and threads when available - it will be in 2026?

As for that last part, I have been that guy. Not too long ago I made a rotary table fixture where I had to colour code all the holes and I absolutely feel for anyone who has to navigate that file.

[Newbeeee™]

Exactly! Otherwise, how do you distinguish between a 0.250" dia hole that can/should be drilled vs. the same diameter geometry that should be drilled+bored+reamed?

Just checking....is your .250 hole size pre- hard anodise, or post....

[Zoffen]

Jab? Hah, nah.

Its a whack with a stick ,  

I was about to post a TopSolid Automatic Hole video from 12 years ago but that would be mean. Only a mean person would do that and thats not me but whoa if someone was to do it..... 12 years... geeze ..... sad... very sad....

[Newbeeee™]

I was about to post a TopSolid Automatic Hole video from 12 years ago but that would be mean. Only a mean person would do that and thats not me but whoa if someone was to do it..... 12 years... geeze ..... sad... very sad....

You cannot rush these things....