cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Suggestion for Cam Improvement

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Hi All,

  One of the ways to speed up your programming effort on parts with a large number of pockets is to use geometry groups. You create a geometry group for each pocket that contains just the needed geometry for that pocket. This helps to reduce the generation time since you are not accessing the entire part solid with each operation. But the most effective thing about it is you can create all the cuts/operations for one pocket and then copy and paste the operations into the remaining geometry groups and it works like a template. When doing hundreds of pockets this can save many hours of repetitive work. It is not perfect but it can be very helpful. It also helps when doing engineering changes since if the engineers change the geometry in one or two pockets you change the geometry groups for the changed pockets and there is no need to regenerate the other operations since the changed geometry is only referenced in the affected geometry groups.

 

  But there is an improvement that could be made here. At my company we program all stages of a part in a single file. So if you have 4 stages and each stage has 100 geometry groups then you can end up with 400 groups. In most cases you have to copy the groups from say rough side 1 and past them into the MCS for finish side 1. This makes for duplicate groups and increases the amount of groups you have to choose from.

 

   To improve this process it would help if Siemens could separate the MCS from the remaining Geometry groups. Then you could assign an MCS group and a Geometry group to your operations separately. This could cut the needed geometry groups in half. I realize that this is a major departure from the past but it I feel it could simplify and improve the product.

 

  I personally try to create no more than one MCS group per stage as I have found that at least in the people I have worked with that the MCS is the most likely location for an error. If you have multiple MCS groups that should be identical then they somehow end up not being the same. That is why I would prefer to assign the MCS and the Geometry to the operations separately thus using less groups with reduced error potential.

 

   What do the rest of you think about this?

Learn online





Solution Information