5 axis - Machine Simulation Software, Absolutely Necessary? Or "She'll be right"? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Thanks for all the input, this is a massive help.

    From what I understand, there is a bunch of you guys out there that are getting by just fine with out a simulation software. With the key points being:

    - The accuracy of the model provided by the machine manufacturer plays an important role in how reliable the CAM based simulation will be (.step files provided by DMU)

    - Existing crash detection abilities of the machine controller itself should be explored (we have the heidenhain)

    - The power of the CAM system and how well it is configured is vital to the validity of the simulation (we will be using Master Cam, NX doesn't have good support here)

    - Running without would suit a more experienced machine operator


    Using the Vericut software:

    - Still only as good as the machine model provided and the information that has been modeled in to the system.

    - will provide an accurate representation of what actions the machine will perform especially when in full 5 axis

    - Suited more to an inexperienced operator

    - Expensive but could be considered (in a way) a type of insurance

    - can save you time by not having to proof out complex code


    As a new operator I like the idea of having it and from what I've read it seems like it would be a good investment to go along side master cam. Maybe it's worth holding off until after the training is complete to invest in the package thought? Just so we have a good idea on whole package of everything?

  2. Likes aarongough liked this post
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    130
    Likes (Received)
    355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukas D View Post
    Thanks for all the input, this is a massive help.

    From what I understand, there is a bunch of you guys out there that are getting by just fine with out a simulation software. With the key points being:

    - The accuracy of the model provided by the machine manufacturer plays an important role in how reliable the CAM based simulation will be (.step files provided by DMU)

    - Existing crash detection abilities of the machine controller itself should be explored (we have the heidenhain)

    - The power of the CAM system and how well it is configured is vital to the validity of the simulation (we will be using Master Cam, NX doesn't have good support here)

    - Running without would suit a more experienced machine operator


    Using the Vericut software:

    - Still only as good as the machine model provided and the information that has been modeled in to the system.

    - will provide an accurate representation of what actions the machine will perform especially when in full 5 axis

    - Suited more to an inexperienced operator

    - Expensive but could be considered (in a way) a type of insurance

    - can save you time by not having to proof out complex code


    As a new operator I like the idea of having it and from what I've read it seems like it would be a good investment to go along side master cam. Maybe it's worth holding off until after the training is complete to invest in the package thought? Just so we have a good idea on whole package of everything?
    What do you mean "waiting for the whole package of everything?"

    I would at least get off this forum and reach out directly to CGTech and start talking to sales or applications engineers. They might be able to give you some rough pricing. Naturally they are going to sell their solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread, so be prepared for the sales pitch.

    ALL of the reasons people are saying about why Vericut is only as good as the models and the virtual setup are true - but THOSE ISSUES ARE STILL GONNA HAPPEN even if you aren't using Vericut. As an example, I scrapped a prototype last week bcause of a programming error. Vericut would have shown me the error immediately if I had run the simulation. The datum was meant to be offset 0.3"...the datum SHOULD have been the center of the stock, but my dumbass forgot to update it. Vericut would have caught the issue if I had set up my G54 in Vericut as the center of the block, which is logical. Wy would you need to offset stock 0.3" at the machine?? That was my mistake.

    Point is, all of those examples given come down to human error - either error in the machine setup, the programming, or the Vericut setup. Or if the tool isn't defined properly - that is operator error. It is the programmer's job and responsibility to ensure that their data is accurate. Nothing in the world is going to prevent such errors from happening, but Vericut is an extra tool to carry in your toolbox that makes sniffing out those errors a lot easier and sometimes a lot less expensive.

    I would assume your solid models are 100% accurate from the machine builder. Tool holder data is pretty easy to get and if you have to create it yourself, you can do so accurately. The biggest thing with Vericut is making sure that the virtual controller is set up EXACTLY like your real world controller is. Our controller has some fancy Z-axis safe retract moves it can do. Needs to be set up in the Vericut controller.

    As far as training, I didn't do any formal training, but maybe should have. It isn't crazy expensive to take a 3 day course on Vericut stuff. A good add on to that is they offer courses on control building within Vericut. Assuming you can accurately build your own machines and controllers, you can save thousands of dollars if you get a new machine and need a new configuration set up. I think Vericut charges $2-4000 per machine configuration.

  4. Likes empwoer liked this post
  5. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4691
    Likes (Received)
    1267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    What do you mean "waiting for the whole package of everything?"

    I would at least get off this forum and reach out directly to CGTech and start talking to sales or applications engineers. They might be able to give you some rough pricing. Naturally they are going to sell their solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread, so be prepared for the sales pitch.

    ALL of the reasons people are saying about why Vericut is only as good as the models and the virtual setup are true - but THOSE ISSUES ARE STILL GONNA HAPPEN even if you aren't using Vericut. As an example, I scrapped a prototype last week bcause of a programming error. Vericut would have shown me the error immediately if I had run the simulation. The datum was meant to be offset 0.3"...the datum SHOULD have been the center of the stock, but my dumbass forgot to update it. Vericut would have caught the issue if I had set up my G54 in Vericut as the center of the block, which is logical. Wy would you need to offset stock 0.3" at the machine?? That was my mistake.

    Point is, all of those examples given come down to human error - either error in the machine setup, the programming, or the Vericut setup. Or if the tool isn't defined properly - that is operator error. It is the programmer's job and responsibility to ensure that their data is accurate. Nothing in the world is going to prevent such errors from happening, but Vericut is an extra tool to carry in your toolbox that makes sniffing out those errors a lot easier and sometimes a lot less expensive.

    I would assume your solid models are 100% accurate from the machine builder. Tool holder data is pretty easy to get and if you have to create it yourself, you can do so accurately. The biggest thing with Vericut is making sure that the virtual controller is set up EXACTLY like your real world controller is. Our controller has some fancy Z-axis safe retract moves it can do. Needs to be set up in the Vericut controller.

    As far as training, I didn't do any formal training, but maybe should have. It isn't crazy expensive to take a 3 day course on Vericut stuff. A good add on to that is they offer courses on control building within Vericut. Assuming you can accurately build your own machines and controllers, you can save thousands of dollars if you get a new machine and need a new configuration set up. I think Vericut charges $2-4000 per machine configuration.

    +


    Quote Originally Posted by Lukas D View Post
    Thanks for all the input, this is a massive help.

    From what I understand, there is a bunch of you guys out there that are getting by just fine with out a simulation software. With the key points being:

    - The accuracy of the model provided by the machine manufacturer plays an important role in how reliable the CAM based simulation will be (.step files provided by DMU)

    - Existing crash detection abilities of the machine controller itself should be explored (we have the heidenhain)

    - The power of the CAM system and how well it is configured is vital to the validity of the simulation (we will be using Master Cam, NX doesn't have good support here)

    - Running without would suit a more experienced machine operator


    Using the Vericut software:

    - Still only as good as the machine model provided and the information that has been modeled in to the system.

    - will provide an accurate representation of what actions the machine will perform especially when in full 5 axis

    - Suited more to an inexperienced operator

    - Expensive but could be considered (in a way) a type of insurance

    - can save you time by not having to proof out complex code


    As a new operator I like the idea of having it and from what I've read it seems like it would be a good investment to go along side master cam. Maybe it's worth holding off until after the training is complete to invest in the package thought? Just so we have a good idea on whole package of everything?
    I think Heidenhain has some kind of "Gizmo" or camera (as an option) that does basic checking to see or compare if a set up is different in some way to a previous same setup, and I guess e-stops / interrupts / alarms out.


    Not that this is my application area but with the stuff we have been playing with for 15 years ++, it would be possible to quickly image three dimensionally what's on a table and compare that with how the CAD/CAM system "Thinks" things are supposed to go, (real time),

    but as you know tool definitions and their respective geometries are "So so". + whatever on control tweaks + actual machine interpretations of various G and M codes that have been "Spat out" can cause very different things to happen versus what can be programmed on a PC in the "Office".

    Additionally I think Programs like Esprit claim to be more 'Stock Aware"/ remaining stock-aware ,

    But I know that Heidenhain are trying to knock a hole through what's actually on a machine and going on with a particular machine in terms of tooling and then feed that back to the Programming "Desk".


    I think with MAZAK and their claimed "Digital twin" + more off the shelf tool definitions and geometries and more of a 1:1 correspondence and simulation on the control itself there seems to be less chance of unpredictable behavior.


    But again a camera / cameras (real time) could mitigate or "Flag" potential "Boo boos".

    Mikron / GF have some machines that have a mechanical/ dynamic / "Kinematic" ? crash protection.

    Just spit balling - but thought the Heidenhain control was sposed to be better at that kind of thing.

    MAKINO put a second computer on the backside that renders the 3d set up real time with great detail to doooo real time crash prevention (all be it "Blind") hand in hand with MASTERCAM - I believe.

    ^^^ One stratagem to counter the lack of 3d processing capability of a native Fanuc control system - that's where CAMPLETE used to have most of it's bread and butter from... [Ideally hooked up real-time to a machine (at least advocated by Matsuura.)].

    ________

    Will re-read thread.

  6. Likes Lukas D, Milacron liked this post
  7. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4691
    Likes (Received)
    1267

    Default

    @Lukas D maybe google about the Heidenhain website and Camera verification capability they have,

    Not sure if Celos causes problems with 3rd party extensions for a Heidenhain developed accessory / add-on ?

    DMU (monoblock) 95 with Heidenhain control but Heidenhain natively or smooshed into the Celos system ?

    The DMG Mori Celos Heidenhain flavor / interface claims "HSCI - Heidenhain Serial Controller Interface " ?? ? + other signal processing capabilities.

    + newer feedback of what tools and definitions exist on a control that are "Fed-back" to the CAD/CAM programmer (at least for slightly newer Heidenhain capability.). <--- Seems to be Heidenhain's "want" and thrust for what's new and what they are putting development time and $ behind.

  8. Likes Lukas D liked this post
  9. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    6,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2551
    Likes (Received)
    3158

    Default

    We bought (couple jobs ago) a postability post with machine sim from Postability. People kept telling me it wasn't using the G code for the sim, but everytime I ran the simulation it posted code in the background somewhere I guess, then the simulation ran. Also, never had a crash using it/

  10. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    5,691
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1546
    Likes (Received)
    837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    We bought (couple jobs ago) a postability post with machine sim from Postability. People kept telling me it wasn't using the G code for the sim, but everytime I ran the simulation it posted code in the background somewhere I guess, then the simulation ran. Also, never had a crash using it/
    There is a version from postability that is linked into the machine/control def and runs the simulation via the NCI code.
    Not gcode, but next best thing...

  11. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    830
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    112
    Likes (Received)
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    We bought (couple jobs ago) a postability post with machine sim from Postability. People kept telling me it wasn't using the G code for the sim, but everytime I ran the simulation it posted code in the background somewhere I guess, then the simulation ran. Also, never had a crash using it/
    It uses the created NCI. So no, not technically Gcode but its what the Gcode comes from plus some extra goodies from the post which all get combined to drive the sim. They use the same logic to convert the NCI to gcode as they use to convert the NCI to machsim motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    There is a version from postability that is linked into the machine/control def and runs the simulation via the NCI code.
    Not gcode, but next best thing...
    Looks like you beat me on the reply
    Technically, the sim is linked to the post, not the machine/control def (post reads md/cd). Splitting hairs but just wanted to clarify.

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    11,067
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    658
    Likes (Received)
    8856

    Default

    Vericut did not even come to life until 1988. I'd hope some here were doing 5 axis mill work before this date.
    It and other sims are very handy tools to have in the box.
    What would be nice is a system that takes pictures of the setup and builds the model for the fixture, part stock, clamps and such for the sim automatically.
    This will happen.
    Bob

  13. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    5,368
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4039
    Likes (Received)
    1667

    Default

    I would suggest that you temper this idea "- can save you time by not having to proof out complex code"

    You will still be proofing out all code - the proofing will be easier, you'll be comfortable with what will happen earlier in the test run, but you will still be watching carefully.

    Because if you, for example, set Z0 in the work coordinate system to the bottom of the part, instead of to the top, and then hit go, DCM on the heidenhain (assuming it's turned on) will prevent the endmill from making a hole in table or the trunnion arm. But it might still make a hole in the vise, or destroy a tool, or both. If it hits hard enough an HH might stop before any real damage *to the machine* - but the endmill, the workholding, and above all the part (which might be very costly) are expendable.

    I can tell you from experience that a 2006 era DMU can snap a 1" endmill without even blinking, and that same endmill can make a horrible gouge in a workpiece without burping. You still will always at least need to be sure that the setup (WCS values) you are using are matching what the program is expecting.

    And that the lengths of the tools (H lengths fed to G43, or the tool table values on an HH) are reasonably correct. If you change out an endmill and it's 0.1" longer it can still make a horrible mess.

  14. Likes Lukas D liked this post
  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    What do you mean "waiting for the whole package of everything?"

    - I mean we get the machine and CAM package to get started off, get an idea of what existing functionality the controller and CAM has and determine then whether we need a simulation package. I feel like at least then I'd have a broader understanding of how each system is going work and can make a more educated decision? Not sure how you didn't pick that up from "waiting for the whole package of everything?" I did a great job at articulating my point.

    I would at least get off this forum and reach out directly to CGTech and start talking to sales or applications engineers. They might be able to give you some rough pricing. Naturally they are going to sell their solution as the greatest thing since sliced bread, so be prepared for the sales pitch.

    ALL of the reasons people are saying about why Vericut is only as good as the models and the virtual setup are true - but THOSE ISSUES ARE STILL GONNA HAPPEN even if you aren't using Vericut. As an example, I scrapped a prototype last week bcause of a programming error. Vericut would have shown me the error immediately if I had run the simulation. The datum was meant to be offset 0.3"...the datum SHOULD have been the center of the stock, but my dumbass forgot to update it. Vericut would have caught the issue if I had set up my G54 in Vericut as the center of the block, which is logical. Wy would you need to offset stock 0.3" at the machine?? That was my mistake.

    Point is, all of those examples given come down to human error - either error in the machine setup, the programming, or the Vericut setup. Or if the tool isn't defined properly - that is operator error. It is the programmer's job and responsibility to ensure that their data is accurate. Nothing in the world is going to prevent such errors from happening, but Vericut is an extra tool to carry in your toolbox that makes sniffing out those errors a lot easier and sometimes a lot less expensive.

    I would assume your solid models are 100% accurate from the machine builder. Tool holder data is pretty easy to get and if you have to create it yourself, you can do so accurately. The biggest thing with Vericut is making sure that the virtual controller is set up EXACTLY like your real world controller is. Our controller has some fancy Z-axis safe retract moves it can do. Needs to be set up in the Vericut controller.

    As far as training, I didn't do any formal training, but maybe should have. It isn't crazy expensive to take a 3 day course on Vericut stuff. A good add on to that is they offer courses on control building within Vericut. Assuming you can accurately build your own machines and controllers, you can save thousands of dollars if you get a new machine and need a new configuration set up. I think Vericut charges $2-4000 per machine configuration.
    - For it to be worth having the sim software has to be speaking the EXACT same language as the controller and I need to be very careful and spend the time modeling all aspects of the operation.

    I'll have a chat with the applications guys if you think it's worth it? My ear holes are getting real sore from all these hard and deep sales pitches - it turns out that they ALL have THE BEST gear - bizarre hey, you'd think there would just be one.

  16. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    I would suggest that you temper this idea "- can save you time by not having to proof out complex code"

    You will still be proofing out all code - the proofing will be easier, you'll be comfortable with what will happen earlier in the test run, but you will still be watching carefully.

    Because if you, for example, set Z0 in the work coordinate system to the bottom of the part, instead of to the top, and then hit go, DCM on the heidenhain (assuming it's turned on) will prevent the endmill from making a hole in table or the trunnion arm. But it might still make a hole in the vise, or destroy a tool, or both. If it hits hard enough an HH might stop before any real damage *to the machine* - but the endmill, the workholding, and above all the part (which might be very costly) are expendable.

    I can tell you from experience that a 2006 era DMU can snap a 1" endmill without even blinking, and that same endmill can make a horrible gouge in a workpiece without burping. You still will always at least need to be sure that the setup (WCS values) you are using are matching what the program is expecting.

    And that the lengths of the tools (H lengths fed to G43, or the tool table values on an HH) are reasonably correct. If you change out an endmill and it's 0.1" longer it can still make a horrible mess.
    - I'm the kind of person who watches a roast cook in the oven (It's a jungle in there - I can see why 1960's house wives had benzo addictions) If there's anything that can help, even slightly, subdue my anxiety when it comes to operating this machine I want to know about it. Tool setting and entering the correct offsets is of monumental importance and no sim software is going to give insurance on that from what I gather?

  17. Likes bryan_machine liked this post
  18. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    @Lukas D maybe google about the Heidenhain website and Camera verification capability they have,

    Not sure if Celos causes problems with 3rd party extensions for a Heidenhain developed accessory / add-on ?

    DMU (monoblock) 95 with Heidenhain control but Heidenhain natively or smooshed into the Celos system ?

    The DMG Mori Celos Heidenhain flavor / interface claims "HSCI - Heidenhain Serial Controller Interface " ?? ? + other signal processing capabilities.

    + newer feedback of what tools and definitions exist on a control that are "Fed-back" to the CAD/CAM programmer (at least for slightly newer Heidenhain capability.). <--- Seems to be Heidenhain's "want" and thrust for what's new and what they are putting development time and $ behind.
    Thanks! I'll check it out and have a chat to the DMG rep too.

  19. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    6,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2551
    Likes (Received)
    3158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukas D View Post
    - I'm the kind of person who watches a roast cook in the oven (It's a jungle in there - I can see why 1960's house wives had benzo addictions) If there's anything that can help, even slightly, subdue my anxiety when it comes to operating this machine I want to know about it. Tool setting and entering the correct offsets is of monumental importance and no sim software is going to give insurance on that from what I gather?
    Correct. If you program a 1/2" endmill and someone loads a 5/8", the machine doesn't know it's different than the cam tool. BUT for example, in Mastercam, you can define the toolholder, the tool flutes, shank, check reach, etc, so if you set the tool correctly in the machine, the sim will show you if there is going to be a collision or whatever.

  20. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4691
    Likes (Received)
    1267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukas D View Post
    - I'm the kind of person who watches a roast cook in the oven (It's a jungle in there - I can see why 1960's house wives had benzo addictions) If there's anything that can help, even slightly, subdue my anxiety when it comes to operating this machine I want to know about it. Tool setting and entering the correct offsets is of monumental importance and no sim software is going to give insurance on that from what I gather?

    Webinar: How to Use Your CNCs Digital Twin to Save Time and Avoid Costly Mistakes by Gardner Business Media, Inc. Webinars

    This is / was ^^^ a webinar on the concepts that underpin "Digital twin". [Having started earlier this morning.].

    Courtesy of Modern Machine Shop (Magazine).

    So MAZAK - as mentioned earlier and DMG Mori are pushing the concepts of (perhaps) more than a buzz word "Digital twin".


    I haven't boned up on this 100%, but here's my 60,000 ft view.


    So taking a plane vanilla 5 axis Fanuc control,31i-A5 etc.




    This is worth watching to get an idea of how most (if not almost all) CNC machine controllers operate as what is known (in computer science) as a "State machine". I.e. various conditions and transformations and behaviors are pushed onto a 'Stack" and the final behaviors of the machine are determined by the context of each command and what has been previously pushed onto the controller as the "Current state". Each command has a context and is modified by it's immediate context as well as the nested structure of various state variables that may or may not have been set up correctly or cleanly re-set or cleaned up at the beginning and end of each program run.

    ^^^ That's why it's sometimes so difficult to "on line" give "Quick fix" solutions to 5 axis problems with a complex control as it may not be clear what a given MTB may have customized a control to do or how it interprets specific or custom G-codes and M codes, (for a specific implementation) + whatever conditional statements that may be called from a posted program + whatever tweaks that may have been arbitrarily made to a program and post + whatever things a skilled operator may have had to push onto a machine in a "pinch" (at the control). Without having a good purview of all those factors and being able to interrogate the control and the whole posted code (listing) it's tricky to gain a predictable and lucid overview and clear prediction of what will happen to a machine. Either for fixing weird problems or getting a sense that unpredictable behaviors and crashes can be detected without fail - up-front.

    So that's what I believe is behind the concept of a digital twin is that the CAD/CAM workstation running the MTB's custom "digital twin software" being networked together can interrogate the particular machine (in question) for all of these contextual state variables and the specific state of the very specific controller (as set up and created by the MTB all the way through to whatever a machine operator may have pushed onto a control. ) including tool definitions, offsets and presumably tool wear / various compensations <--- [Tricky ! ]. And then the posted code from the CAM system is run in a simulation mode on the MTB's "Digital Twin's" software environment (in some cases - in the programming office on a separate PC.) to prove out a program from information gathered from the specific networked target machine. That way there's a near 1:1 correspondence with the specific machine on your floor + being able to load geometries for fixtures and castings and what not.
    [ I know this presumes a pre-tooled up de-facto machine with 60 or 100 tools type scenario. ].

    ^^^ Presumably that would grant someone at or on tech support to check and help prove out a machine's program remotely and offer new users a bit of hand holding until they have achieved greater competency and confidence (perhaps).
    (I can see that being a useful service in the future that could be billable by the hour - kind of thing. vs. on site training for $5K to $10K and having to cram everything in , on site in a week or three days.). ~ That would help mitigate a lot of problems with newer users.


    There are other factors (as previously mentioned by others in this thread) that can cause crashes from the machine not being able to 'See" what's really on the table and 'See" what's really going on with specific tool holders even. ~ Will maybe tackle that separately.


    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ _________


    *** Interesting approach to novice users with face pressed against the glass with feed hold and e-stop - trying not to have a "brown trouser moment" on a new really expensive machine . - VS. an experienced machinist and programmer where a fairly stable program runs and someone makes a small error with a piece of stock or clamping / fixture "Blunder" from a more casual attitude from repetitive work.

    |||||- I dunno for educational institutions / training environments I feel like if things are really 'Bad" maybe 3d print out of foam (type) parts and fixtures / vices to test collision avoidance assuming one can avoid plunging straight into a table... [lasers anyone ?] - (people used to use machining-wax-blanks, but not nice for a chip conveyor lol).

    __________________________


    *** HELLER have a scaled down working mechanical model of a 4th axis horizontal to practice on (like a mini-"Me" version of one of their larger horizontals with a full control.). I.e. it's easier and cheaper to rebuild if you crash the lighter smaller bench top machine.




    ^^^ Completely different approach - scale working model of a machine that can be rented for a period of time to gain confidence. (Mach 2016).

    Different approach to computer 3d / virtual simulation only - versus actual hardware on a smaller scale.



    ________________________

  21. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    945
    Likes (Received)
    2949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cameraman View Post
    Webinar: How to Use Your CNCs Digital Twin to Save Time and Avoid Costly Mistakes by Gardner Business Media, Inc. Webinars

    This is / was ^^^ a webinar on the concepts that underpin "Digital twin". [Having started earlier this morning.].

    Courtesy of Modern Machine Shop (Magazine).

    So MAZAK - as mentioned earlier and DMG Mori are pushing the concepts of (perhaps) more than a buzz word "Digital twin".
    "Digital Twin" is just management bozo speak for what CAM programmers have done forever; model our work-holding, tools, and perhaps even the machine so we can get an accurate assessment of collisions and such. Of course, Digital Twin as a phase also encompasses a bunch of bullshit that will be promised, but probably never happen. Remember Industry 4.0?

    Who comes up with this shit?

    Anyhow, the problem with Digital Twins when MTBs talk about it is that they are usually talking about the digital twin in the control. Let me tell you - after having gone through the Okuma collision avoidance seminar, and seeing how the same gets done on a DMG Mori DMU 50... This tech is next to useless in the real-world.

    Why? Because despite my asking every which way, nobody could show me an easy path for transferring tool/part/stock/work holding geometry into the machine. At best, you can import STL files and place them manually. The affordances for defining geometry on the control are atrocious, the sort of UI dreck you expect from CNC machine control engineers who (still, after 15 years) never laid eyes on an iPhone. Wait till you get to define stock with text boxes, and graphics from an Atari!

    This is useless. Am I supposed to keep two completely different libraries of my work holding and tools in two very different environments (one of them with a punishing human interface?). I need to double my work now, and model/program my parts in my CAM, then walk over to the machine tool and stand there for an hour picking through menus to re-define it? Monumental waste of time.

  22. Likes cameraman, empwoer, LockNut liked this post
  23. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4691
    Likes (Received)
    1267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gkoenig View Post
    "digital twin" is just management bozo speak for what cam programmers have done forever; model our work-holding, tools, and perhaps even the machine so we can get an accurate assessment of collisions and such. Of course, digital twin as a phase also encompasses a bunch of bullshit that will be promised, but probably never happen. Remember industry 4.0?

    Who comes up with this shit?

    Anyhow, the problem with digital twins when mtbs talk about it is that they are usually talking about the digital twin in the control. Let me tell you - after having gone through the okuma collision avoidance seminar, and seeing how the same gets done on a dmg mori dmu 50... This tech is next to useless in the real-world.

    Why? Because despite my asking every which way, nobody could show me an easy path for transferring tool/part/stock/work holding geometry into the machine. At best, you can import stl files and place them manually. The affordances for defining geometry on the control are atrocious, the sort of ui dreck you expect from cnc machine control engineers who (still, after 15 years) never laid eyes on an iphone. Wait till you get to define stock with text boxes, and graphics from an atari!

    This is useless. Am i supposed to keep two completely different libraries of my work holding and tools in two very different environments (one of them with a punishing human interface?). I need to double my work now, and model/program my parts in my cam, then walk over to the machine tool and stand there for an hour picking through menus to re-define it? Monumental waste of time.

    my emojis are not working ---> Sh*t eating grin emoji :-) --- >

    __________________________________________________ __

    I'd wager MAZAK have a more / simpler and smaller defined "Universe" for all that + higher bandwidth on the control + some sort of graphical awareness..

    I agree much testing and Beta testing would be required to actually make stuff useful and YES there are computational deficiencies that some MTB's are trying to compensate for in various ways. ~ Interesting work arounds for simpler "Core" "processing" - engine.

    I usually get kicked in the nuts by someone (here) if I dare look sideways at an Okuma control in terms of what could actually "be". But IMO Okuma is for a different very "Hard core" environment i.e. larger aerospace shops etc. i.e. the idea is everyone already knows what they are doing or training in structured way already exists in one form or another. Sure expensive blunders still happen.

    Makino - opengl / window-in onto the Fanuc modified control from their backside second PC that has decent graphics capability + speed. [wonder about long term replacement of parts and contingency for that ? ] + 3rd party software(s) - plural for that ? ].

    I agree it's time consuming to have to do everything two or three times in three different environments that have to have 100.00000 % "Parity".

    That's why vision systems and or mechanical crash prevention (like Mikron) seem more useful (or both) - if the goal is not to destroy a new machine. ~ That's why structured "Baby" steps over a longer arc make more sense IMO. I.e. not expect to go balls to the wall on a new machine "Week 3" on complex programs lol.

    Tool breakage detection and what I saw the other day with a Makino J6 - (webinar) etc. to have a physical test probe / Special-fast-finger (at the spindle) that checks if the spindle and tool holder are seated correctly and are running truly concentric [lightning fast]. i.e. all for more reliable automation and checking for chips getting in where they shouldn't. + more flood coolant than you can shake a stick at / "dishwasher mode" on steroids. [But the control is stripped down a bit for 5 axis "point and shoot" positional work in a more production oriented environment. BUT cuts down on overall system complexity when designing / building automation between a larger number of the same machine (even with) layout variants for individual machines 3, 4 and 4/B and 4 /A and 5/ A+ B. ].

  24. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4691
    Likes (Received)
    1267

    Default NMV3000 -something or other... is back ????

    .

    @LuKas D




    ^^^ NMV3000 "reboot" ????


    I thought DMG states-side burried(sp) this ? and some vague memory / mumblings of Dixie ?

    https://us.dmgmori.com/resource/blob...0-pdf-data.pdf

    ^^^ newer PDF on the machine ,

    Page 9, they show a "Circularity (simultaneous 5-axis control) <NAS Standard 979> "

    with a value of 2.9 micron ~ that's YASDA territory. (DD motors on B and C axes) but bear in mind max weight on table is about 220 lbs or 80 to 100 KG. for the NMV 3000. ).

    Not to be confused with regular ball bar test, these sim-5 axis tilted cone tests are pretty challenging to get within 8 to 15 micron on. versus more regular 5 micron circularity on regular co-planar XY ball bar tests you see on 3 axis machines. I.e. not measured test piece but air cutting with a ball bar tester, versus sim-5 axis cut titled cone on a measure part - if it's to be believed sub 3 micron, that's really something.

    [The design of the octagonal column is very similar to a key assembly we have to engineer on a smaller scale - so thumbs up from on engineering "theory" / practice. ].

    Page 10 they show ,

    nmv-colision-avoidance.jpg <--- Click to enlarge.

    ^^^ collision avoidance graphics + detection in either manual or "Automatic mode".

    + many other features + F31iB, F31iB5 (Fanuc control + MAPs IV (at least in this brochure)+ other enhancements.

    + a solid offering for automation palette systems and loads-a-tools

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____


    In the past there have been some grumbles about this machine / NMV line but hard to tell if some of the anecdotal reports are FUD (synthetically generated "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt" ) or whether there were inherent problems that actually got ironed out. Again mainly thermal / repeatability errors that were unresolvable but maybe seven years ago ++ ? . Or whether it's the DM-G side of the business clearing a path for their products ? [ a bit of rivalry there perhaps ?]. Or just something programming related ?

    @Lucas D given you are looking at a DMU(mb) 95 maybe the NMV 3000 or bigger 5000 might be worth a "gander ".


    ** There seems to be an on-line portal for this machine that might be OK for where you are + spare parts.

    FANUC back-side should be pretty indestructible.

    The on-control simulation and real time collision avoidance (superficially) looks credible.

    They seem to have a camera in there but maybe somewhat under-utilized, but might be a possibility for the future.

    ~ as per the original topic title " 5 axis - Machine Simulation Software, Absolutely Necessary? Or "She'll be right"?"

    Wonder how a base-ish version of an NMV3000 prices out these days ? vs. the DMU 95 etc. (mb) .

  25. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    49
    Likes (Received)
    128

    Default

    Here is another option:

    NC simulation software | NC and G code simulator, robot programming

    We use this for every job going into one of our automated cells. It's at least half the cost of Vericut. To the best of my knowledge we've never had a crash or over-travel on a detail verified with Eureka.

    Dan

  26. Likes cameraman, Lukas D liked this post
  27. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    9,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    Vericut did not even come to life until 1988. I'd hope some here were doing 5 axis mill work before this date.
    APT

    NCL is still around, I think ...


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
  •