Message 1 of 7
Message 2 of 7
It is difficult to see what the cause of your problem could be and I think you are talking about more than one problem. Your comments are profound, but not precise - to help you, we need a precise description of each individual problem.
CL Data or Toolpath verification: When you say that the results are dramatically different, do you mean that the finished shape is not the same?
Play Through vs Rapid Through: There are differences in how Play and Rapid are rendered, rapid does not give as smooth a result as Play. If the Rapid is done for all toolpaths rather than one at a time, the result will be more crude. This is the price we pay for the speed.
When a clash is reported, you need to check the parameters for the cutter - is the flute height, cutter length, shoulder diameter etc suitable for the toolpath being attempted?
Curiously, your screenshots do not seem to show the same cutter being used.
P.S. It's a good idea to use jpg or gif files for screenshots, bmps tend to be a bit big and slow to load.
Message 3 of 7
CL Data verification did not gouge. The Toolpath did. (Another user here should me how to modify the tool_change.def file to fix that problem)
If you look on the left side of the bitmaps I attached in the first thread you'll see that there are 2 operations. The first one is a 1" tool and the second is a .5" tool. As I said before I can not make it thru the first toolpath because of the Clash error. The other picture made it thru the first toolpath and switch to the second.
So, I'll ask my question again. Do I use CL Data for verification or Toolpath for verification? Once I know which one I am supposed to use I will stop wasting my time watching the wrong verification.
Message 4 of 7
I have tried to reproduce your problem by deliberately machining a deep pocket with a cutter that is too short, in all verification modes (Toolpath;CL Data;CL Data from User pre-saved file; Cutter loaded in Tool changer;Cutter not loaded in Tool changer; Tool move; Stock move). Note that a Rapid Verify does not report or highlight clashes/gouges, so you may not spot marginal errors. In all my tests, Solid Verification correctly reports a clash between the shoulder and the stock. So, I repeat my first remark - if the system reports a clash, check the cutter parameters!
To understand why the Solid Verification fails to work properly on your file, I need to see the file. I'm sorry you have hit this problem. If you upload to the forum, I would be delighted to check it out.
Message 5 of 7
Message 6 of 7
Message 7 of 7
I've emailed your thread to support group to get the correct answer to your question. I would recommend that you send support type questions like this to the support line as they are then properly logged in the database.
I have also asked this question before and I believe the answer is that you should run the cldata. This is because the cldata sometimes adds information to the graphics file before posting. This could affect the tool motion, particularly things like retracts.
I also ran some speed tests and agree that generally it is not faster in V10. I was down in Florida recently and discussed this with development. They believe that they are going as fast as the 3rd party software allows. They have asked me to send some verification log files so they can send them onto the 3rd party developer for testing. I'll let you know when I get some answers back.
- autocad slide library manager
- how to find area in autocad
- autocad 2012 serial number
- 3d design software free download
- free cad cam software
- how to find area of irregular shapes in autocad
- cam design software
- why can't i explode a block in autocad
- autocad cursor highlights polylines
- cad discussion
- pdf to dwg
- freecad tutorials
- autocad moving objects
- DXF converter
- autocad area calculation