Best practices: modeling vise/table?
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    66
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    60

    Default Best practices: modeling vise/table?

    I have a best practices CAM question.

    Historically, once I have drawn up a part, I define a stock object, and set the part origin to a stock point (either one corner or the top center). I probe down that stock point, and away I go. If I have multiple parts set up to run at once, I just stick each of them in different coordinate spaces, and run each part in series. This is a bit inefficient, and I have to be quite careful about the motion area, so I don't smack into a vise jaw (or worse)....

    I built a nice solid model with sliding joints for the table, vise jaws, tool setter, etc. Is the best practice to import this model into each part (or make an assembly?) and then do the CAM from within that whole-table model?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1157
    Likes (Received)
    694

    Default

    Personally, I find modeling the table and vices and then programming in the assembly annoying. Unless it's a fixture where I gang up several parts for a first op. Typically I prefer how you have been doing it historically speaking. I like each part having it's own work offset and will usually just copy and paste the toolpaths to optimize tool changes. As long as you keep leadins/outs to a minimum and retract planes high enough you shouldn't have to worry about your motion area.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    200
    Likes (Received)
    574

    Default

    In HSM/Fusion you can just apply toolpaths to a "pattern" and not have to model the fixturing to get the result. You can cut the fixture and the parts in the same way, so it lends itself to accuracy and simplicity. There is also a feature that will work with multiple offsets using the same tool to save tool changes.

    That said, I do like having ONE offset on a fixture. It really simplifies things for setup swapping from part to part.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,073
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4616
    Likes (Received)
    3058

    Default

    I almost never model my vise,table and fixtures. Unless it's a major project it's usually a waste of time.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    173
    Likes (Received)
    211

    Default

    Yes, No, Maybe is my final answer.

    like what the others said, more the Wisconsin guy's , born and raised, really depends on what the need is, from a part file to an assembly, I use assembly most of the time (SW + HSMWorks) because I do not have to modify the part when sketches are need to contain toolpath and can a material for machining or custom shape material for side 2, 3, 4 if needed for adaptive clearing.

    we have made custom sub-plates on our mills, do so many odd shaped parts for the students allows us to set parts over the pin and tapped holes for holding and clamping, plus set G110 at center of plate and don't have to edge find the part\s, use the reamed pin hole to flip for side two.

    so you just have to find the balance that works for you. so YES NO MAYBE

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    106
    Likes (Received)
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trochoidalpath View Post
    I have a best practices CAM quest

    Historically, once I have drawn up a part, I define a stock object, and set the part origin to a stock point (either one corner or the top center). I probe down that stock point, and away I go. If I have multiple parts set up to run at once, I just stick each of them in different coordinate spaces, and run each part in series. This is a bit inefficient, and I have to be quite careful about the motion area, so I don't smack into a vise jaw (or worse)....

    I built a nice solid model with sliding joints for the table, vise jaws, tool setter, etc. Is the best practice to import this model into each part (or make an assembly?) and then do the CAM from within that whole-table model?
    If you really need to use setup models for collision checking then I recommend using them as components in an assembly. That way you can easily reposition them and use mating conditions. Also you can use multiple components of the same model instead of having copies in your file with simplifies a lot of things, especially if you have to modify a model then it is in all the components automatically. The power of assemblies is absolutely huge and I feel sorry for people who need it but their software doesn't have it. Painful to watch to say the least.

    That all being said, and I don't know what software you're using, I only make a setup assembly when I really need it or when a customer is on site and I want to up the wow factor.

  7. Likes len_1962 liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •