Facing Macro.

[Martian]

General reply to the others commenting.
The dude, corona virus - in an average week we can have 200 1 off's that are different size plates skimmed to thickness at present this is done by a semi-skilled operator with no support by simply altering 4 figures at the machine, which is far quicker than using a cam software, also bear in mind that my desk is at least 90 meters from the machine/operator/work in question.


Bill/Boosted... At least someone understands the application. thanks.

 

[Martian]

P.S. I have about ten of these macros if anyone is interested....?

 

[Martian]

Hey Bill (angelw) any more information please?

 

[CORONA VIRUS]

So says he who doesn't have much of a grip on Trig; still waiting on your reply to your two triangle solution in the "Using Trig for manual programming" Thread.

It seems to me that the OP's Macro is working and its not a bug per se; he just wants the cutting action to be Climb Milling and doesn't know how to get there. The same could apply to a CAM generated program, if the user wasn't totally familiar with the CAM software.

Changes can also be made "on the fly" to affect the resulting action of a Macro and one doesn't even have to step away from the machine; no going back the CAM software, regenerating a new CNC program and uploading it to the control.

Are you Johnny Larue or Deadly Kitten incognito, or as suggested in another Thread by others, the monkey and the stick guy?

Oh, sorry. I had no idea your life was stalled because I never answered a question I did not see. Well, I guess I don't know anything then, do I you fucking dumbass.

 

[CORONA VIRUS]

P.S. I have about ten of these macros if anyone is interested....?

No thanks.

 

[angelw]

Oh, sorry. I had no idea your life was stalled because I never answered a question I did not see. Well, I guess I don't know anything then, do I you fucking dumbass.

Well it would seem that you don't. And so eloquently put Johnny; matches your persona precisely.

 

[metalmadness]

LMAO this thread. OP if youre dead set on continuing this Macro discussion youre probably better off just DMing the members who showed helpful willingness.

Me, I am just gonna continue banging out CAM facing operations.

 

[dandrummerman21]

Years ago, we ran titanium target tiles. And the problem was, the sizes of the tiles varied, both between part numbers, and even the (customer supplied) material for a given part number.

For example, most parts finished at 1" thick, but the stock would come in at anywhere between 1.08 and 1.35" thick. We were feedmilling these on 2 different machines, one on a 50 taper horizontal with a 5" iscar feedmill (120RPM at 60ipm! i think 10 flutes, .040 deep), and a 3" feedmill on a box way 40 taper.

One day They might give us 10 plates, 2 or 3 different sizes, various thicknesses. And we just set it so we called up the face macro after probing. Set size, tool diameter, xy dimensions. The probe would probe several areas in Z and find the high point, and do the math from there.

Another macro program was set to mill around the plates. Plates either had a straight wall, or 1 or 2 steps of different sizes. The macro even deburred.

It was easy, made quick work of it all. And we didn't have to reprogram anything. I'd guess we probably did about 100 unique parts like that.


So I guess I look at people saying that it is STUPID to have a macro for facemilling and can't figure out why. If you gave me 20 part numbers, I could generate facemill code for each one very quickly. But if I want to train someone to run parts at the machine, and all they do is facemill, then teaching them to change 5 numbers in a macro program simply makes sense. Don't have to worry about them knowing how to program, etc. Change the numbers, done.

What gives, guys?


Now I didn't review the code very fast, but one thing stood out to me. You say that the feedmill doesn't appreciate conventional milling? Unless you're doing it on a tinkertoy linear way machine, the feedmill shouldn't really care. You can bury the thing full slot and it shouldn't be much different than doing an 80% climb or 80% conventional cut. What machine are you running this on?

Edit: I'm by no means a feedmill expert, but I think I've read that feedmills which have straighter edges, rather than a sweeping radius, are better for titanium. There's "less" engagement of the insert in the cut, if that makes sense? At least that's what I think I read.

We use Iscar feedmills. These ones: https://www.iscar.com/eCatalog/Family.aspx?fnum=2591&mapp=ML&app=65&GFSTYP=M

 

[jz79]

I'm no feed mill expert, but I think there is quite a lot of difference in how pressures are generated with a feed mill, in climb mode there would be a lot of axial pressure into the spindle, but same everything going conventional - there would be a lot more radial loading on the same spindle - couple that to usually quite large chip loading could lead to lots of noise and worse...

 

[Martian]

First off Corona Virus as you can tell from the people who seem to have actual experience in machine shops, the macro is the perfect approach for this situation.
The only person making them selves look stupid is you. And no doubt you will come back with some uncouth reply, but I ask have some self restraint and don't.


dandrummerman21 - Hey, I started running this and could not believe how poor the tool life was and like you thought there is no way it could be the conventional tool path to the point were I got the Rep in to look and then debated the fact with him only to try in Climb and get a 4X's increase in tool life.
PS. Its a Ø63mm 9P Seco tool I'm running in a BBT40 Vac and clamp work holding so rigidity is fine.


Oh and thanks to all those who have put constructive comments.