Cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

Finally (a couple years after our NX10 upgrade) I convinced a couple programmers to try out holemaking.

NX10.0.3.5 MP16 or MP19, using "out of the box" parameters.

 

Below are their comments:

 

I have programmed a part using the Hole Making cycles. Generating them the first time is quick, maybe even quicker than the PTP Drilling cycles. However once you try to either reorder your sequence or if you modify anything that comes before their creation. They with go "edited" (red circle).

This causes very long regeneration times (1-2 hours in some cases), just to reorder and regenerate them.

Using the PTP Drill Cycles only take a few minutes to do the same thing. I believe the Hole Making is a better way to create holes features, but for me it just takes too much time. I really want to use this tool, but it needs to be a lot faster.

?Is there a way around this sequence regeneration?  Or is there a way to speed up the sequence regeneration?

 

and

I also used holemaking to program the deep hole drilling for one part and have also been disappointed for the reasons specified.  While the associativity between tool paths is a neat feature, it causes frustration and inefficient programming.  NX becomes bogged down very quickly when doing much of anything with holemaking.  

 

I realize part of this problme may be training, and I haven't really had enough time to spend with these users to see if there is anything obvious, but have any of you seen the above issues and have any recommendations?

 

They have figured out if the have a separate workpiece, the holemaking ops don't go out of date when previous pps are generated, but I think that's not a particularly good way to work around the problem.

Thanks for any help...Ken

Ken Akerboom Sr CAx Systems Engr, Moog, Inc.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP16/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steamed than e-diseaseled


29 REPLIES

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

What are the IPW settings of the drilling operations (none, local, use 3D)?

What are the intersection options of the drilling operations (none, only part, only IPW, part and IPW)?

If the tool path doesn't change, why not use object => approve for the drilling operations?

NX 10 has some shortcomings compared to later NX releases, especially in NX 12 a huge amount of performance improvements has been integrated.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.1, FBM, MRL 3.1.7 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 (10.1.7.0) | TcVis 11.4
Development: C (ITK), .NET, Tcl/Tk Testing: NX12.0 | AWC 3.4 Preparing: NX12.0

Employees of the customers, together we are strong Smiley Wink
How to Get the Most from Your Signature in the Community
NX Customization - Best Practice Guide

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Siemens Legend Siemens Legend
Siemens Legend

Ken,

I have seen a performance hit with hole making, but not as bad as you are seeing, but then again, I am using demo parts with usually less than a dozen holes, how many holes and operations are you talking about? 

Another caveat you need to be aware of, if you have holes on a hollow cylinder that are 180 degrees apart, Hole Making will only machine it from one side.

You cannot use min max diameter to select holes, but you can use the feature navigator to find all steps and then create a feature group of the holes, and use that as geometry. On the MCS there is an option for Tool Axis, if you set it to All Axis it will find all holes around a part for tool axis orientation.

In NX 11, the point to point template is commented out in the cam_general.opt file, if you want to use the p2p you will need to uncomment the line, or you can add just the Drilling p2p operation to the hole making template.

I myself use hole making on 99% of all my drilling operations. However, I do find, in some cases that I must use a p2p operation to get the desired output.

The big benefit to hole making, is that it does understand the solid workpiece, so you don't have to retract the tool to clear features on your part. It is also keeps respect of the IPW.

I have shown both processes to new customers, and they do prefer hole making to p2p. 

If you can send me with a sample I can test in NX11 and NX12.

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Genius
Genius

Hello Ken, 

 

Having used the Hole Making (Drill) operation for one year, I can conclude a few things.

 

1.- UI is more straightforward and more intuitive than the PTP operation.

2.- Takes a bit longer to generate, though never has been a limitation and never as long as the feedback you got.

3.- Sometimes the PTP is needed, mainly when there is no hole in the model. Tag point is used instead.

 

Let me know if you are also interested in recommendations regarding the Hole Milling op. I have a few ideas in mind.

Salvador Peregrina
Systems Engineer | NX 11.0.2.7

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

I forgot to mention

- This was done using manual selection of the hole geometry (not feature recognition)

- In a Teamcenter environment (not that I think TC has much to do with this)

 

To answer Stefan

Part has(approx - counted manually ;-)

- 92 mill ops (2.5 axis milling - cav mill, planar mill, etc.)

- 3 PTP drill

- 3 hole milling

- 87 hole making

 

Hole making:

- 20 30 countersink ops (IPW = "Use 3D", no intersection option available)

- 20 30 drill ops (IPW = "Local", intersection option ="Part & IPW")

- 27 "deep drill" ops (IPW = "Local", intersection option ="none")

 

I know about "approve", at this point I'm not too comfortable recommending it, (in case model updates & programmers don't catch the changes)

 

Mike -

I have 12.0.1 installed, I'll try it there.  If there are still issues, I'll contact you directly & see if I can get you the part.

 

I did try editing one of the mill ops, that then set all the holemaking to "out of date"

I started regenerating all ops (using the option to NOT regen ops that are not marked out of date)

Started regen at 11:52.

Went to lunch

came back at 12:55, NX was waiting for me to answer dialog about "floor plane not perp to tool axis".  I hit "no" to a couple of those, then decided to stop the regen to get the above info, so I hit "Stop" (to abort the regen)

waited until 1:06 for stop to actually finish, it never did, so I used task manager to kill the NX process.

 

Edited: I can't seem to add 13 + 17 to get 30

Mike - some of our parts have LOTS of holes (although not all holes are done in one setup)  I would guess that all the above ops are doing just 30 holes (or so).  But we actualy have "Hole nomenclature" drawings so everyone knows which hole is which (I've seen them approaching 200 holes).  Holes are at all angles.   Think of a block of cheese tumbling around all 3 axes being randomly shot by bullets.  Most holes are blind.  Most holes are not just a "straight hole" either.

Ken Akerboom Sr CAx Systems Engr, Moog, Inc.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP16/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steamed than e-diseaseled


Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

We have done 600 and more holes of one kind with the new drilling operations from the hole making template, without issues. I know that there is a big improvement of performance for these situations in NX 12, but was not yet able to test it with the latest release.

With a number below hundred for the test part, I would suggest to do a geometry check, so one knows the quality of the body.

There was also a big performance hit in NX 8.5 for bodies with holes containing tiny faces or a face count of 2000 and higher, but this is no issue with NX 10.

BTW, Teamcenter is normally no factor to take into consideration.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.1, FBM, MRL 3.1.7 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 (10.1.7.0) | TcVis 11.4
Development: C (ITK), .NET, Tcl/Tk Testing: NX12.0 | AWC 3.4 Preparing: NX12.0

Employees of the customers, together we are strong Smiley Wink
How to Get the Most from Your Signature in the Community
NX Customization - Best Practice Guide

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

More testing results...

Tried regenerating in NX10.0.3.5 MP16 & NX12.0.1 (no MP)

Part started out with all operations at "green check" status.

Testing method was to delete toolpaths, then generate from "NC_PROGRAM" (program order view)

Timing done by looking at clock in lower right corner of screen (truly low-tech)

 

All operations

NX10: Never finished (hung in a cavity mill operation)

NX12: 16 minutes

 

Lock one operation

So I locked the one operation before deleting the toolpaths, then regenerated ("Generate Remaining" option due to the locked path)

NX10: 13 min

NX12: 19 min (NOTE: I was nodding off by this time, and there are a few dialogs that have to be dealt with manually, so I might not have responded very quickly to one or another of them)

 

Lock all milling toolpaths, just generate holemaking & hole milling

I was wondering if the milling operation were skewing the results, so I locked all the milling operation toolpaths.

Again "Generate remaining" was selected.

NX10: 10 min

NX12: 14 min.

 

User had PTP operations in "unused items" to do all the holes

If I generated them, time was 2 min for the PTP ops only.

 

Is there anything that can be done to speed this up?

Would changing the IPW settings, or intersection options, make holemaking *significantly* faster to generate?

 

Right now, my conclusions are:

1) Holemaking *may* be faster to create operations initially vs. PTP

2) Holemaking operations go "out of date" anytime ANY operation before them is edited/changed, hence are always requireing regeneration (unless you lock them, inviting the programmer to miss issues due to model or previous operation changes) (PTP rarely go out of date  unless the MODEL changes, but I recognize they are completely "non IPW aware")

3) Holemaking operations take an order of magnitude longer to generate than PTP

 

So you may save time due to (1), but you more than lose that saved time due to (2) and (3)

Ken Akerboom Sr CAx Systems Engr, Moog, Inc.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP16/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steamed than e-diseaseled


Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

The only way is to turn off collision and/or gouge checking inside of the drilling operations, but then you always have to do gouge checking afterwards.

I would only turn off gouge checking, but keep collision checking on, so that there will be no transfer move violation.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.1, FBM, MRL 3.1.7 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 (10.1.7.0) | TcVis 11.4
Development: C (ITK), .NET, Tcl/Tk Testing: NX12.0 | AWC 3.4 Preparing: NX12.0

Employees of the customers, together we are strong Smiley Wink
How to Get the Most from Your Signature in the Community
NX Customization - Best Practice Guide

Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

Stefan -

I tried turning stuff off

- No gouge check -> generate took 9 min in NX

- no GC & no Collision check -> Still took 9 minutes.

 

I think I'll take Mike up on his offer ;-)

 

Ken Akerboom Sr CAx Systems Engr, Moog, Inc.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP16/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steamed than e-diseaseled


Re: Holemaking - initial impressions

Gears Phenom Gears Phenom
Gears Phenom

I have been using Hole making for a couple of versions.  It has improved from version to version.  Unfortunatly IMHO is is lacking some basic functions that have been in Point-to-Point for many, many years.

 

Non Cutting Moves like Engage and Retract, these should be at least as good as Point-to_point.  I can't see the advantage of creating a Generic Motion operation to get the tool into the position I need before perform a drilling cycle.

 

I can live with the operations going out of date when the IPW needs to update.

 

The Hole Milling is someting I use a lot and only wish the Non-Cutting moves we at least as good as Planar Milling.

 

If your going to replace something at least make it as useful as the function your making obsolete.

 

John Joyce, Manufacturing Engineer,
Senior Aerospace Connecticut
www.senioraeroct.com
Production: NX11.0.2.7, Vericut 8.0.3
Development: Tcl/Tk
Testing NX12.0

Learn online





Solution Information