[chennan]

Hi, guys,
I have just used SC 7 for a few days, it came with the Tormach PCNC 1100 I bought.
I found I cant use the "rotary machining" process to finish a part provided in the tutorial documents.
Here I attach two pictures, the first one is the model provided in the tutorial documents which come with the SC 7, its name is "rotate".
The second one is the machining result after creating and running a "rotary machining" in the "finishing" menu of Tormach model.
The problem is that the process does not finish the part properly, you can see in the picture that some edges are left.
I think this should be a easy problem and "rotary machining" should be able to finish this part in one process. Or am I wrong? Anyone has anyone idea? I greatly appreciate your help!
Thanks,
Chennan

[chennan]

I just found that a "rotary machining" simply can not finish a part like this for each stepover (including the final finish stepover) is fixed for "rotary machining" in axial direction. So unless the width of a slot is N times the stepover, the slot can not be completely milled out. I simply don't know why "rotary machining" can't adjust the final finishing setpover.
So anyone has any idea how to machine this part?

[compunerdy]

Attach your sprutcam file. Almost everything I do is rotary so I should be able to figure it out.

[chennan]

Attach your sprutcam file. Almost everything I do is rotary so I should be able to figure it out.

Thank you!
Please take a look at this.

[compunerdy]

I could not open it... which version are you using? I am probably using a older version.

[chennan]

I could not open it... which version are you using? I am probably using a older version.

I am using Build 1.6 Rev 50148.
Can you just open this attached file. It is the original model. And machine it with "rotary machining". And then post the result so I can open it and look into detail. Thanks.

[dkaustin]

You may just be seeing a video-processing artifact. Try changing the "Simulation Method" in the Simulation Screen. Your project works fine in my installation of Sprut (Build 1.6 Revision 46984) using either "Solid" or "Voxel 5D", but it gets a little wonky using "Voxel 3D."

Hope this helps.

[chennan]

You may just be seeing a video-processing artifact. Try changing the "Simulation Method" in the Simulation Screen. Your project works fine in my installation of Sprut (Build 1.6 Revision 46984) using either "Solid" or "Voxel 5D", but it gets a little wonky using "Voxel 3D."

Hope this helps.

I used "Solid" for simulation. And see this attached picture. I changed the strategy from "spiral" to "circular", so it looks better. However, it still leave some thin walls unreached. You can see they are the blue thin areas which represent the difference between machining result and original model. Can you post a picture of your machining result? That will be helpful. Thanks a lot!

[dkaustin]

OK, I think I understand better now. What you are trying to get rid of is some remaining stock on the axial faces of the crankshaft lobes. I was able to reduce but not eliminate it by reducing the step parameter to a very small value. The downside to that, of course, is that the job takes a long time to run. Beyond that, I am stumped.

Maybe our friends at SprutCAM America can shed some light. Eric, are you there?

[compunerdy]

The spiral makes sense since it cannot continue the spiral against a flat face.. Why it will not go up to the edge when doing circular is beyond me. You can fake it by setting a stock offset..sort of. You could also finish it off by using 2d contouring or something like that along the edges that rotary will not get.

[chennan]

OK, I think I understand better now. What you are trying to get rid of is some remaining stock on the axial faces of the crankshaft lobes. I was able to reduce but not eliminate it by reducing the step parameter to a very small value. The downside to that, of course, is that the job takes a long time to run. Beyond that, I am stumped.

Maybe our friends at SprutCAM America can shed some light. Eric, are you there?

Calculating the final stepover should be a basic function of such software. Are we just not yet find where to adjust that?