I am on 12.0.2 mp5
Anyone else have issues with the shank gouging and being ignored with collision detection on?
I have a "Surface Area" Drive Method in a Contour Area operation.
Collision check is on.
Check above ball is on.
The part is selected.
Projection Vector is toward drive.
It ignores the shank! Before I send this in, anyone else dealt with this? Have a potential workaround. I can't upload this one, but could try and duplicate.
I have used this path in the past and never had issues like this, or maybe I was just getting lucky before.
Here is the simplifed version.
I was able to find something that works, but am surprised that the smoothed non-cutting moves gouge the part. If they just skipped an connected to the next move the path would work well.
As you said, the gouge check did find them though.
I experimented with your part for a little while. Your scenario can be a tough one depending on how you want or need to engage. I tried eliminating the check faces and instead used tool and holder checking. NX accomodates the non cut moves and it doesn't handle going into and out of bi-tangent intersection very well. Understandable unless Siemens would change the operations so they could wrap the check faces slightly. Can you use a tool vector more co-linear to the oval shape? This could give you a little more room for holder clearance. By the way I wasn't sure about your tool vector; I guessed it was co-linear with the part edges on the same side as the oval shape. Also, the operations are all using G1 Feed Mode for rapids, I used slightly more holder clearance, adjusted the smoothing max stepover and region distance.
I experimented with fixed contour using spiral non-steep with path smoothing and z-level steep. The other is using none for steep containment and path smoothing. It would be nice if we had some control over the amount of path smoothing so the center of the collapsed region could be smaller. Also, if your scanrio allows it, sometimes reducing the part clearance can reduce the length of long engages and retracts as well.
Thanks for the info.
So did you use Area Milling? There are a few areas I need to use Surface Area with Projection Vector. Check Tool and holder dissapears as an option with Surface Area it seems. There is still Check Tool Above Ball in the Surface Area though.
You used vectors for the engage retract?
Re-upload the part if you can.
Yes, I used area milling with a tool axis vector. The non-steep cut pattern was spiral which is stepover applied on-part even though it doesn't say it.
As I mentioned earlier, I did not know for sure what tool vector you used but it appeard it was co-linear with these edges.
I just recalled in your part you had check faces defined with stock. You could try a Z-level profile operation with no check faces and then trim the path so you could get nice engages/retracts; assuming there is enough room to do so. Keep in mind you can have multiple cut area sets so if you need some safe stock on the sides, you could do it that way. If there is enough room for this then you could have nice engages/retracts and stay away from your walls you don't want zero stock on.