Hello to all
I came from NX8 to NX10/NX11
I have question for CAM users.
How do you visually verify your operations or check for leftovers, etc…
In my case I used simplest way – static IPW. It is accurate and fast. It is extremely useful in our case and cannot work without visually checking the operations.
But in BX10/NX11 that function is not working (properly) anymore. When having multiple MCS the static IPW is not giving the result. There must be some kind of bug. (one set of operations with one MCS still gives right result)
I know that 3D dynamic IPW can be used. But it’s taking way too long to generate the IPW. And I’m speaking also when suppress animation is used. It simply takes way too much time. If I use lower tolerance, then IPW is not accurate enough, etc…
So, what are other using and how you deal with that??
Re 3D IPW - have you tried just selecting the last operation & verifying that?
It will first update all the other operations to get the current state of the IPW.
Not sure if it is any facter than what you are already doing, but it IS faster than visually verifying all the operations
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP5 + patch/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steemed than e-diseaseled
After Gouge Check I use Show Thickness by Color to display excess and negative stock then use Verify 3D Dynamic to check for IPW collisions. If Verify 3D Dynamic is taking too long you can set the IPW resolution to Fine, Medium or Coarse and also set custom amounts for those resolutions in preferences and customer defaults.
Thanks for reply.
But still that does not give me the answer/solution.
3D IPW is taking enormous amount of time to visual check the (group of) operations.
I really wonder how other are coping with that?? Or nobody need to visual check the parts for leftovers and to visual check the manufactured parts etc..? Well I do.
So static IPW is (unfortunately was) still superb solution.
I made simple test (part boundaries are appx. 115 x 91 x 78)
I made 4 operations. Rough, semi and finish (and separate finish for “bottom square”)
With static IPW with higher resolution that default (1000, default is 400) it needed 6 seconds to generate it!
With 3D (suppressed animation and medium resolution), it took 58 seconds!!
In this case static is even more smooth than 3D.
You can do the math how much more is that. And with ONLY SIMPLE part. Imagine more complex.
So I really wonder how others are doing this?
(Like mentioned, static IPW is partly working with one MCS or something like that. And it has to be right aligned, etc, etc. I didn’t find exact cause for error-bug) Bottom line it’s not working anymore, like it should or like it was in older version e.g. NX8.
It would be really useful if Siemens would fix this.
Any help appreciated.
Are you refering to the Legacy Static page in Visualize, that you have to turn on in Customer Defaults?
Have you tried Workpiece --> Show 3D?
@ MarkRief. Static page has to be enabled in customer defaults. It’s it not on by default in e.g. NX10, NX11
Can you explain about “Workpiece --> Show 3D”. As far as I can see, its only working for “cavity mill” and not for the whole group of operations. And even for one operation (e.g. cavity mill) it takes a lot more time than “static IPW”.
@ Dstryr, sample part attached. But it does not matter “how long it takes”. What matter is the difference between two options.
I’m really surprised… because I question myself what others are using in “real life jobs” and how come it’s not an issue for anyone??
Sorry we have not been much help on your issue but I believe Static was deprecated several versions ago because it has no collision checking, is usually very coarse how it displays results and ultimately has a very narrow benefit for most users.
I 3D verified your part on my computer, which I do not consider fast, and it completed it using neeedle distance of 1mm in 37 seconds but still not fast enough for you. It sounds like you are not doing any gouge checking nor checking for tool and holder collisions with your part or IPW. Static has always been faster but has very limited usage other than for a quick, albeit coarse, display. If the behaviour is changed in nx10 and 11 then I recommend contacting gtac to open an IR. Perhaps they are aware of the issue and a fix might be planned.
What is the objective here? To see the final part shape? To see how mach material is remaining? To detect gouges or collisions?