What's new
What's new

yet another STUPID video from practical machinist youtube page

You must not watch Youtube, that's how they are taught to finish at Youtube University, cracks me up when I can see HSM paths on the floor of someone's parts :bawling:

That type of milled parts is really not normally part of my daily life, so I am curious about this reply?

You don't like HSM in practice?
or
You don't like being able to see the toolpath in the floor at all?

This is a serious question, b/c I'm not understanding anything about that comment (by it'self) that seems out of line?


----------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox
 
That type of milled parts is really not normally part of my daily life, so I am curious about this reply?

You don't like HSM in practice?
or
You don't like being able to see the toolpath in the floor at all?

This is a serious question, b/c I'm not understanding anything about that comment (by it'self) that seems out of line?


----------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox
HSM tool paths feed across removing material until end of cut,
then they retract up in Z some dimension (you can set this usually .01" off floor) then usually they high feed move over to the next pass.
this lifting up and lowering over, and over and over, does not give you a good or correct floor finish.

the best floor finish would be that your tool never lifts up from Z once down to finish a floor. (we cant all be running Makinos or similar)

depending on the software there may even be a default floor clearance that keeps your HSM path from even going to its lowest Z dimension to ensure that there is material for a proper cleanup pass,
you can override this usually by putting in a minus number from the the max z depth usually in the actual parameter not desired.

hope this makes sense.
 
HSM tool paths feed across removing material until end of cut,
then they retract up in Z some dimension (you can set this usually .01" off floor) then usually they high feed move over to the next pass.
this lifting up and lowering over, and over and over, does not give you a good or correct floor finish.

the best floor finish would be that your tool never lifts up from Z once down to finish a floor. (we cant all be running Makinos or similar)

depending on the software there may even be a default floor clearance that keeps your HSM path from even going to its lowest Z dimension to ensure that there is material for a proper cleanup pass,
you can override this usually by putting in a minus number from the the max z depth usually in the actual parameter not desired.

hope this makes sense.
the other part is, leaving the floor finish from a roughing toolpath is just bad practice because you wont have a nice finish. the whole tenessee floor finish thing was a joke between some instamachinist guys anyway, lol.
i HOPE nobody actually does that seriously on purpose.
 
HSM tool paths feed across removing material until end of cut,
then they retract up in Z some dimension (you can set this usually .01" off floor) then usually they high feed move over to the next pass.
this lifting up and lowering over, and over and over, does not give you a good or correct floor finish.

the best floor finish would be that your tool never lifts up from Z once down to finish a floor. (we cant all be running Makinos or similar)

depending on the software there may even be a default floor clearance that keeps your HSM path from even going to its lowest Z dimension to ensure that there is material for a proper cleanup pass,
you can override this usually by putting in a minus number from the the max z depth usually in the actual parameter not desired.

hope this makes sense.
To add to this description is another thing I have seen people from Youtube U do,
that is the one and done HSM path, they run the HSM path at full Z depth for the floor, and they do have a finish pass on the walls, but they leave the HSM roughing at the final dimansion.
this causes the tool to deflect perpendicular to the engagement angle of the tool, tilting the face of the end mill this leaves a washboard finish,
but you know all this, we all do.
 
the other part is, leaving the floor finish from a roughing toolpath is just bad practice because you wont have a nice finish. the whole tenessee floor finish thing was a joke between some instamachinist guys anyway, lol.
i HOPE nobody actually does that seriously on purpose.
When a customer emphasizes cost over aesthetics and is ok with the finished parts, roughing right to depth is a good way to cut some cycle time.

I've roughed to finish depth on really thin parts (in Z) as well. Like a big pocket with a .010" thick floor. The thick stock keeping the part ridged as long as possible.

I'm sure there's other uses for the strategy.
 
Last edited:
When a customer emphasizes cost over aesthetics ans is ok with the finished parts, roughing right to depth is a good way to cut some cycle time.
100% , some customers want the extrusion left, don't touch it.
I've roughed to finish depth on really thin parts (in Z) as well. The thick stock keeping the part ridged as long as possible.

I'm sure there's other uses for the strategy.
Actually as far as I know doing this for thin floored parts is one of the best ways to get it done, a finish pass after all support is gone sometime is not doable due to chatter vibration.
we obviously would slow down the feeds and step over as to not deflect the face of the cutter.
 
Is this today's argument? Okay. Mastercam pocket floor finishes are exactly what the rest of the pocket was. If you used constant overlap, spiral, zig-zag, whatever, that's the finish it leaves on the finish pass, plus any requested spring passes.

To not get that pattern, you'd have to duplicate the operation and do an individual finish op to make it different.

And while I like the neatness of parallel lines, some people like the HSM loopy patterns.
 
Is this today's argument? Okay. Mastercam pocket floor finishes are exactly what the rest of the pocket was. If you used constant overlap, spiral, zig-zag, whatever, that's the finish it leaves on the finish pass, plus any requested spring passes.

To not get that pattern, you'd have to duplicate the operation and do an individual finish op to make it different.

And while I like the neatness of parallel lines, some people like the HSM loopy patterns.
It's only an argument if you disagree but are convinced its correct :D
Lay on your infinite wisdom :toetap:
Like empower said, "I hope no one actually does that."
let me know when you are making injection molds that cant have cutter marks on any of the surfaces so all cutter marks have to be polished out of tool steel.
or you have parts with tight Ra finishes, then let me know why people don't do that, or should.

just cause its faster or easier, doesn't mean its correct, that means its lazy programming.
best floor finish would be where the cutter slow angles entrance into the surface, has no sharp corners in its strategy, and never lifts up until its done, then smooth angles out.
 
let me know when you are making injection molds that cant have cutter marks on any of the surfaces so all cutter marks have to be polished out of tool steel.
or you have parts with tight Ra finishes, then let me know why people don't do that, or should.
Yep, as I always say: we're probably all correct. I absolutely see a world of concerns in the world of injection molding or other finish-critical parts. All my stuff was structural and just needed to be done, though I did try to make things aesthetically pleasing for my own satisfaction.

I shared because Mastercam is kinda' one of the industry standards and they didn't provide a means to change the floor finish within the same operation. It would have been easy enough to incorporate, they just didn't. In light of this discussion, it seems odd to me that they would leave out something if it was a widely-known practice and so offensive to some.
 
Yep, as I always say: we're probably all correct. I absolutely see a world of concerns in the world of injection molding or other finish-critical parts. All my stuff was structural and just needed to be done, though I did try to make things aesthetically pleasing for my own satisfaction.

I shared because Mastercam is kinda' one of the industry standards and they didn't provide a means to change the floor finish within the same operation. It would have been easy enough to incorporate, they just didn't. In light of this discussion, it seems odd to me that they would leave out something if it was a widely-known practice and so offensive to some.
I think its peoples interpretation of using the software. They added that finish option as speed to make quick regular parts I'm sure, I wouldn't use it, but its handy for others.
My roughing of any surface, never has anything to do with the finishing of the surface,
there is always a separate operation, Why? The strategies are totally different for what you are trying to accomplish, 100%
 
I guess I've never had a deficiency I've had to work around and I can count on one hand how many RMA's I've had and they weren't due to quality that a machine could have fixed, and shit, if my parts came out any faster, what would I do, I already have too much free time!

I just wrapped up a job I had scheduled to finish by EOD tomorrow, I am now a full day ahead of schedule, gosh, if I had a more expensive machine would I be two days ahead of schedule!

Damn I might have to buy a more expensive machine though and only work 6 months out of the year!
There’s something to be said for buying time :)
Pay the kid to low the lawn, worth it.
Buy a wiz bang, worth it if the # make sense.
I love free time with family after making enough $ to be secure for the year.
 
There’s something to be said for buying time :)
Pay the kid to low the lawn, worth it.
Buy a wiz bang, worth it if the # make sense.
I love free time with family after making enough $ to be secure for the year.
Biggest reason I went into business, freedom to control my schedule, come and go as I want. I bring my kids to school everyday, pick them up, I have never missed a sporting event, practice, games, school lunches, you name it, I am there! Family is far more important.
 
Biggest reason I went into business, freedom to control my schedule, come and go as I want. I bring my kids to school everyday, pick them up, I have never missed a sporting event, practice, games, school lunches, you name it, I am there! Family is far more important.
I’m still building the base buissness to allow the same.
I miss stuff but am very flexible sch. And getting better.

There’s many ways to be rich.! Not just money
 
I’m still building the base buissness to allow the same.
I miss stuff but am very flexible sch. And getting better.

There’s many ways to be rich.! Not just money
Can't go into business with the goal to be rich, I try to be comfortable and if that means getting paid the same as I was an employee but I have more flexibility in my schedule, that's comfort. If your income increases that's just a plus.
 
Biggest reason I went into business, freedom to control my schedule, come and go as I want. I bring my kids to school everyday, pick them up, I have never missed a sporting event, practice, games, school lunches, you name it, I am there! Family is far more important.
Its just money, they'll make more of it :D
Yep, as I always say: we're probably all correct. I absolutely see a world of concerns in the world of injection molding or other finish-critical parts. All my stuff was structural and just needed to be done, though I did try to make things aesthetically pleasing for my own satisfaction.

I shared because Mastercam is kinda' one of the industry standards and they didn't provide a means to change the floor finish within the same operation. It would have been easy enough to incorporate, they just didn't. In light of this discussion, it seems odd to me that they would leave out something if it was a widely-known practice and so offensive to some.
Yeah I took a look to see what you were talking about, yeah that little idiot button that creates a duplicate finish pass.
Dude in the video even setting up a proper separate finish pass operation, leave some floor.
Don't let your software dictate how you machine.
I like how MasterSCAM even has things labeled, pocket, and then inside is routines, reminds me of people talking about just hitting the machine part button, or these shit software's that are all feature based, so must convert to features first.
My software isn't really like that, you go get the machining strategy you want, pocketing something out could, depending on how you wanted it, could be in like 4 or 5 places in the software.
some software has power instead of simplicity, best software I ever ran, and most powerful, was labeled as the hardest most difficult to learn, powerful software usually is.
 
Yeah I took a look to see what you were talking about, yeah that little idiot button that creates a duplicate finish pass.
Dude in the video even setting up a proper separate finish pass operation, leave some floor.
Yes, there is the checkbox to create an additional finish operation. He is also leaving stock on the floor and walls.

But if you look at the tree on the left, there is also a finishing branch there. It lets you specify the finish steps, feeds & speeds, etc, for the finishing pass, right there within the one operation. You don't even have to lift the tool out of the pocket. It can seamlessly go straight into finishing without a retract.

The only thing it doesn't offer there is a different pattern. The cut patterns will be the same as the parent, unless you specify a completely new finish operation by checking the box.

I like how MasterSCAM even has things labeled, pocket, and then inside is routines, reminds me of people talking about just hitting the machine part button,
That's how everything is arranged in Mastercam. I think they started that way back when the earth cooled. Facing ops were all in the Facing dialog. Drilling and tapping were all in the Drilling dialog. 2D Profiling were all in the 2D Profiling dialog. Etc, etc.

Then they added things like circle milling and thread milling. Hmm. Where do we put those? Oh, I dunno, just toss them in the main toolpath menu as orphans. You'd think 2D profile would encompass anything to do with that kind of toolpath because that's what they did with pockets, right? Nope. The dynamic / adaptive milling choices are not anywhere in 2D profile. They just added more types to the Toolpaths menu.

If they cleaned it all up, old operations in saved files would have issues with backward compatibility and people's heads would explode. There are users who get the latest Mastercam maintenance updates pushed on them and they program everything the same as if it was 2005 (old toolpaths). They don't even know where the new stuff is. If they don't go looking for it, it won't jump out at them.

All these packages have their idiosyncrasies. I haven't seen one that I was completely satisfied with.
 
IFF ? Also gobbled up eventually by Autodicks and bastardized ?

Have you ever played with alias design studio ? I opened it a few times, then went back to pro/e :D
Autodicks is correct, If only people new software history, they wouldn't buy shit from that place.

I heard Pro/e was powerful, but haven't used it either.

I didn't see Alias design studio, when Alias and Wavefront merged and they came out with Alias/Wavefront's Maya I did check this out a bit, but that was a long time ago, I've slept since then.

Some Autodicks history for others, the top three 3D Animation software's were Alias/Wavefront- Maya, Softimage-3D Extreme(XSI) , and SideFX-Houdini
Autodick's had nothing Hollywood quality, they had 3D MAX mid tier video game making software.
So as usual they bought up Maya, soon after they bought up Softimage, and luckily no Houdini.:bowdown:

Now Maya is the most popular (the MasterSCAM of 3D) but Softimage was better and more powerful, and Houdini is just known as being the most powerful but the highest learning curve.
shortly after buying Softimage, they stripped it, and shut it down, DEAD!

They have done this so many times, I could probably mention at least half a dozen I know of.

Now I leave people with this, the most popular software was kept, but the better more powerful software was shutdown.
So just because your MasterSCAM is the most popular absolutely doesn't mean its the best/most powerful.

Ahh I remember the days of trying to learn C++ so we could code shaders for using in PIXARS Renderman, that was cringe.
 
You know what is interesting, Houdini which is "procedural" "non-linear" node based software, that was way ahead of it's time.
but in much later years many, and eventually all software's incorporated something like this, to some extent, but not fully based on it.

Yet I don't know of any CAD or CAM software that is non-linear or even node based at all!
 








 
Back
Top