Hello! Is there a reason, why we don't get automatically tracking-points for "usual" 5-parameter-milling-tools?
The current solution is a little bit inconsistant. Some tool-types get automatically trackingpoints, some don't. If there is no reason, why not for all tools?
I am curious, what would you use track points for on a regular end mill?
The tool is driven by its parametric shape.
The output can be tool center or contact contour (part edge).
I've been waiting for this question ;-)
We have "Janus UserCycle", as you know, this is a partner of SPLM.
I've asked Janus, how to do if I want to work with tracking-points.
I received a solution, and it works.
We have a UserCycle for circular-milling. We can use it for hole-milling and for chamfer-mill.
I know, both we can do with the new operations.
But the new chamfer_milling-operation has some restrictions (no user_defined_tool possible; not possible to work with SYS_OD_TIP and go deeper...) so we still have to work with the UserCycle.
For chamfer_mill with UserCycle I need tracking-points. But if I use the UserCycle for hole_mill the UserCycle also expects tracking_points. I know, I can set them, but it would be better if they would automaticly exist.
My question was, whether there is a reason, why not all tools have automaticly tracking-points. Whether the user requires this not so interesting.
Thanks for your answer.
If you want to use the same tool for both planar mill & planar profile, the ability to add tracking points to "regular" tools would be useful, so you don't have to define 2 tools. E.g. a chamfer mill (end mill with a chamfer rather than a corner radius) that you use in cavity mill (to rough) planar mill (to finish) and planar profile (to chamfer/break edges)
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP5 + patch/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steemed than e-diseaseled