@ Mould_United. I do check part for gouge check when postprocess the operation. (in this example I had no tool holder, etc. It was just an example. (also in many cases I do not use tool holder). But I do always check for gouges.
When using Static 3D IPW it is not (mainly) intention to use it for finding gouges (for that “gouge check” is the right/fast tool)
Resolution with Static is satisfying. And even perfect if using higher “resolution”. Like in my sample/pic..
@ MarkRief. Yes, the objective is to see the final shape and therefore material remaining, and sometimes to visualize gouge, etc..
@ paehv. Using »show 3D« in workpiece geometry, does not reduce or significantly reduce time, compared to 3D Dynamic (with suppress animation). Still way to slow compared to »static IPW).
You can try with my sample attached earlier. (but you have to put operations under one geometry).
We can't report to GTAC, because our »maintenance license« just expired.
So it looks like we will have to adopt somehow ??
But still cannot understand, how you guys / others are tolerating so time consuming operations?? I guess that everyone are using IPW checking, to visualize the operations.
There is NX 12.0.2 out and as I saw (at my colleague), the static IPW is still not working correctly. (if there are more MCS or MSC is not oriented as absolute WCS)
If you have the manufacturing part (or e.g. electrode) oriented in such way, that MCS (Z axe) is oriented same as absolute WCS (Z axe), then static IPW is working OK (only for those operations)
I would really like to see static IPW to be working! Its still the fastest “instant” way to visually check the machined part, etc…
What are others using??
Currently I use a combination of Analyze IPW, Gouge Check and 3D Verify for all my programs. I also use them when creating operations, not just at the end of the program.
I haven't used Static for a very long time because it has been depracated, as well as 2D Verify, in favor of 3D Verify. I believe Static does not have any abilities for detecting tool gouging, tool and holder collisions. It also only shows what the cutter is cutting and cannot display the state of the IPW how it actually is cut from the Blank. Another extremely important thing to remember is Static and Gouge Check cannot detect collisions with excess material.
If you have support you can open an IR with GTAC and inquire about it not working with multiple MCS and what the plan is.
There is an option to check the gouge at static IPW. But like already said. The gouges are checked with “gouge check” operation. The static IPW is mainly for visual checking of leftovers, etc... At many operations, it helps you to better understand and see which “sub” operations you need to add for machining the part, etc..
Unfortunately we do not have support any more. If someone else could report the “error” would be nice. (and point them the topic for the complete explanation?)