CAD/CAM discussion forum > Other CAD/CAM Technology > CL Data or Toolpath Verify

CL Data or Toolpath Verify

    
  Subscribe Topic

Rank: 1

Aaron

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-27

Message 1 of 7

 CL Data or Toolpath Verify
03-06-2004 11:48 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Can anyone tell me which I am supposed to use? CL Data or ToolPath verification. The results are dramatically different. They are also different if I rapid thru a CL Data path or play thru a CL Data path. I also get different results if I rapid thru one path at a time or rapid thru to the end. If I rapid one path at a time I can't make it to the end of the path because I get the "Clash happened, cut with rapid feedrate", error. I'm attaching screenshots showing one gouged part at the other is not.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 2 of 7

03-06-2004 04:21 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Aaron

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.

Rank: 1

Aaron

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-27

Message 3 of 7

04-06-2004 07:46 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Why would I get a clash when I verify the toolpath but not when I verify the CL Data. I didn't change the flute length, cutter length or whatever.

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.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 4 of 7

04-06-2004 12:07 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Aaron

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.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 5 of 7

12-08-2004 05:57 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
I know that this has been discussed before but I have not seen a good answer yet, I have been told that I should verify cl data because that is what IMS uses to make the program that will run on the machine, is that what we should use to verify? Also what is the difference between tool path and cl verification? I see that in 10.01 there is an optimised check box but it only works for tool path verification which does not begin to solve the slow verification if I have to verify cl data.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 6 of 7

02-12-2004 11:31 . am   |   View his/her posts only
I would still like to know if I am supposed to use cl data or tool path verification? I asked this some time ago and no answer. I thought that simulation speed was supposed to be faster but I just do not see it yet even in 10.51.

Rank: 1

OldForumPost

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2012-1-14

Message 7 of 7

06-12-2004 10:55 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi George,

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.

Regards,
Vic
See also
X