Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 

Problem with several Tool-Forms

I have a problem with several Tool-Forms.

As you see in the uploaded picture in NXCAM there is no cuttingshape for this tool. There would be the ability to declare the tool as UserDefinedTool.
But the exact contour of the tool only can be replicated with much effort. It would be useful to define the tool as a solid tool. The accurate 3D solid model exists. Unfortunately I can not use a solid tool work for a CONTOUR_PROFILE-Operation. Why not?
You can define tracking points to get a nice contact-contour. Can you help me? How would you define the tool so that you can work with several cutting points and the contact-contour-output? Do you understand the problem with UserDefinedTools? To draw the exact shape often is very difficult and sometimes impossible.
For one, you  mostly don't get all necessary measures from tool manufacturers, on the other hand it means an immense effort. You can even do this effort for a few tools,
but if you have hundreds of these tools the effort is not worth. Especially because this should run automatically when the tools are pulled from a database.

The ability to specify a CUTTING and NON_CUTTING area opened the change to get away from parameter tools. For what Do I still need geometric parameters? You only need parameters for things like pitch, nuber of cutters and so on. Everything you need to get an IPW is the Solid.


Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms

Can you explain some more about what type of machining you want to do with this tool?-

Back chamfering?

Contour chamfering?


Mark Rief
Retired Siemens

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms

Although this is a workaround...

You can get really close using a step drill (under holemaking template)

Yes, the step drill can be used in most (if not all) milling operations.

Although only mill-user defined tool allows tracking points.


One caveat with the step drill is that you can't go directly from a flat face to the first angle.

The way i work around this is to define the flat face at the correct dia, then no taper for .001"

then step out the .001 (radius) to get to the proper dia, and add the taper from there.


You may need to add planes/surfaces to drive the tip of the tool against to properly chamfer parts.


And yes, I agree it would be useful to define the tool as geometry and just import the geometry as a tool.

Ken Akerboom Sr CAx Systems Engr, Moog, Inc.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP5 + patch/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steemed than e-diseaseled

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms


I believe your company is part of the EMF.

If so, enhancements in this area will be shown at the May meeting. 


Mark Rief
Retired Siemens

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms



Thanks for your answers. We want to do Contour chamfering and Back chamfering. But allways with Contact-Contour-Output and with several Tracking-Points.


Therefore the workaround with the step-drill-tool is not really a solution.


What kind of enhancements will be shown at EMF in May? Can you tell me something about it?


Thanks a lot.

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms

Planar milling is the only operation type to support user defined tools, so there you go.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.0, FBM, MRL 3.1.4 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 ( | TcVis 10.1
Development: VB.NET, Tcl/Tk    Testing: NX11.0 EAP, NX12.0 EAP

How to Get the Most from Your Signature in the Community

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms


We don't disclose a lot of future plan specifics in public. We have groups like the EMF (European Machinery Forum) and PLM World, where we can discuss details that are not released under non-disclosure with our licensed customers.


I can tell you that what is in development will probably help your situation a lot.


Mark Rief
Retired Siemens

Re: Problem with several Tool-Forms

OK, fine. Thanks a lot. Hope I can visit the EMF in May.

Learn online

Solution Information