Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply

Tool path issue

[ Edited ]

In the some of opertion if I select part as geometry, Tool path is bad motion. If I did not select part. Tool path goes well. Does someone knows?Tool Path_1.JPGTool Path_2.JPG

-----------------------------------------
NX3.0
NX6.0
NX10.0.35
NX11.0.1
UG_NX is my favorite !!!!!!
9 REPLIES

Re: Tool path issue

If you have defined Part Geometry and have defined Projection Vector - drive path will be projected to Part Geomety according Projection Vector. Depends on Projection Vector and Part Geometry result may be unexpected.

Bad idea to define Part Geometry in WORKPIECE, sometime you need to use another Part, in this case more better to define Part Geometry for each operation.

Re: Tool path issue

[ Edited ]

Chigishev wrote:

Bad idea to define Part Geometry in WORKPIECE, sometime you need to use another Part, in this case more better to define Part Geometry for each operation.


Well, when you create a template for a specific part file, then you would not want to select the geometry for hundreds of operations separately.

I would always try to use one single geometry source for each use-case.

In addition for many operations that are producing tool path sequences, like rest milling, a common geometry object is mandatory.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.0, FBM, MRL 3.1.4 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 (10.1.7.0) | 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: Tool path issue


Canateda wrote:

In the some of operation if I select part as geometry, Tool path is bad motion. If I did not select part. Tool path goes well. Does someone knows?


I would set the projection vector to away from line and specify the axis of the cylindrical face as the line.

Stefan Pendl, Systemmanager CAx, HAIDLMAIR GmbH
Production: NX10.0.3, VERICUT 8.0, FBM, MRL 3.1.4 | TcUA 10.1 MP7 Patch 0 (10.1.7.0) | 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: Tool path issue

I would tend to arrange the Geometry view in the ONT with

 

Blank

-- MCS

----Part

 

or

MCS

-- Blank

----Part

 

(i.e. separate the part from the blank)

So if the part "gets in the way" for surface contouring, you can pick the proper parent (the one with no part defined) yet still use the blank for everything

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: Tool path issue


Stefan_Pendl wrote:

Chigishev wrote:

Bad idea to define Part Geometry in WORKPIECE, sometime you need to use another Part, in this case more better to define Part Geometry for each operation.


Well, when you create a template for a specific part file, then you would not want to select the geometry for hundreds of operations separately.

I would always try to use one single geometry source for each use-case.

In addition for many operations that are producing tool path sequences, like rest milling, a common geometry object is mandatory.


 

Thats all fine and dandy in theory but sometimes it is impossible to get NX to make clean motion like this with a part....

 

I have a lot of parts where we had to create "dumb" operations with no workpiece to get correct toolpath. Usually undercuts or 5x projection cuts

 

NX11.0.1

Re: Tool path issue

Part geometry is often optional in surface contouring. If you do not have part geometry, then the drive path is used as is. If you have part geometry, the drive path is projected to the part. 

Mark Rief
Retired Siemens

Re: Tool path issue

I use this method almost daily partly because it generates much faster but it has the flying blind feeling like the old days of APT/NCL. You have to visually verify alot which fortunately NX does very well. What could be nice is an option to not use the part during toolpath generation but still have the part in the geometry group for workflow and verification. Something like the collision check option in the more tab of the non cutting motion group.

 

jm2c Eric 

Re: Tool path issue

Eric -

Sounds like a good ER to file

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: Tool path issue

I agree,

 

Project "none" would be a great option. Especially if engage retract avoidance/collision checking was possible against the part geometry. 

Post the ER number if you submit it so anyone can jump on

 

Alex

Learn online





Solution Information