Note I have never done this, so these suggestions may (or may not) work
Typing off the top of my head...
In theory, you can treat this 2 ways:
1) As a milling operation, where the C axis is rotating "really really fast"
2) As a turning operation, where you have a "strange" tool.
Which is "better" may depend on the machine (I'm guessing (2) but I don't know for sure)
Note you will probably need a custom UDE to get post output correct.
You'll have to program as a variable axis toolpath. Probably you'll need a UDE so the post can do a "MOM_disable_address" on the C axis ("fourth_axis" or "fifth_axis" as appropriate) then (when done) turn it back on.
The post will also have to take the UDE data to turn on the "turning" spindle to the correct speed.
And handle all the other G/M codes to set things up properly
You need to define the tool cross section so it reflects the (net) material removed. You may not be able to do this exactly. Possibly a full-round grooving insert? Possibly a "form" tool.
Then program in turning operations as appropriate ("Form" tool may require teach mode?).
You will probably need a UDE to trigger the post to output additional codes (e.g. turn the milling spindle on, position the tool "off centerline", etc.)
Others may have better methods.
Sorry, originally I thought you were trying to use a shell mill in turning (due to the insert being "sideways", I thought you are trying to represent a shell mill).
What are you trying to show in the video? It makes no sense to me as you are not using the "cutting" edge of the insert to cut the part.
Are you trying to cut off the part?
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP5 + patch/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steemed than e-diseaseled
Good suggestion I don't know if they get that done successfully at the end.
I doubt that this will be easily work and see here more an enhancement.
1. Problem is for sure the tool definition. As it is shown the working plane of the tool is not the turning working plane but more 90° off. Maybe that can be fixed with a different tool definition.
2. Problem - looking to the internal material removal algorithm - is that this is usually done in 2D and the motion is of the turning plane too. That also could lead to problems with the material removal function.
As said, cool, but rare case, maybe better to file an ER through GTAC.
Thanks for all.
I think, I will add additional tool carrier in XZ Plane, add additional invisible-transparent tool or just insert as projection real tool to XZ plane and will be use X=F(A_Angle) for "shadow" simulation. Not so real, but....