Subscribe Topic

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 1 of 30

 12.55
04-10-2006 09:58 . am   |   View his/her posts only
I have been using 12.55 for a few days now. I see that I still need to scale stl files and Offset 2d rough is not fixed yet either.

I guess I will submit a pcr again, and you will want a sample again and nothing will get fixed again.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 2 of 30

04-10-2006 11:04 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello gjohn

As every VX'er knows, the release of v12.55 has been delayed for a long time. We had some fundamental issues to resolve in order to restore acceptable levels of robustness and performance. Rather than delay the release more, v12.55 has been issued without incorporation of numerous PCR fixes and modifications that we have already coded but require further time to complete QA testing. These fixes will be delivered in v12.60. I do not know the PCR numbers for the specific problems you mention but I can say that we try to prioritise those that are the most important. There will always be something omitted from a release that someone somewhere was really hoping to see, but I hope you will find that overall, v12.55 is a really good product that gives you excellent value for your investment.

Rank: 1

OldForumPost

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2012-1-14

Message 3 of 30

04-10-2006 02:03 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
gjohn,

If your stl is less than about 5 MB and not top secret, I could try to scale it for you in Geomagic.

No charge

Just let me know what you need.

Clinton

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 4 of 30

05-10-2006 05:55 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Thanks for the offer. I can scale it in vx its just that it should not be metric when everything is set for inch.

On another note, what do you use Geomagic for?

Rank: 1

OldForumPost

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2012-1-14

Message 5 of 30

05-10-2006 11:33 . am   |   View his/her posts only
I use it for reverse engineering, mainly for taking point clouds to NURBS. It's a very nice piece of software.

You should check out their website if you are interested.

A side note, they have great service, almost on par with VX

Rank: 1

Paul

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-7-12

Message 6 of 30

05-10-2006 12:35 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Is there anything that can be done to get the problem that our CAM people are running into fixed?

In version 11.5 the Offset 2d rough worked without the tool jumping around.

We are running into a problem with a lot of broken tools, we just do not have the time and money to spend on this VX BUG. In the near future our shop will need to get out a lot more dies per month.

If there is no resolution soon we will be going back to version 11.5, which I'm not really excited about.

Rank: 1

Aaron

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-27

Message 7 of 30

05-10-2006 12:40 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Chris

We have 12 seats of VX. I'd bet we are the largest user in Michigan. When gjohn post something on here he is speaking for all of us who are frustrated with VX. We are not asking for something VX has never been able to do. We are asking developers, programmers, etc... to stop messing up functions that used to work!!!!!! I don't find 12.55 overall or otherwise to be a really good product, VX keeps regressing. The result of the offset 2d rough not working is longer cut times on our CNC's. For a product like VX who is trying to compete with Delcam and such, longer cut times is not a good thing. I know I'm not supposed to post complaints and negative comments on this forum, but I believe this gets more attention than our numerous PCR's we've submitted.

Aaron Gorang

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 8 of 30

05-10-2006 07:12 . pm   |   View his/her posts only


Hello again LC chaps




You are clearly passionate about getting this problem fixed and it is obviously frustrating when things go wrong. I am sorry that it has been such an acute problem on your projects. I need you to help me to help you. I cannot find a PCR record that describes the QM Offset 2d rough behaviour that you are experiencing, except for PCR19462 which was only just submitted (Oct 4) and is currently not supported by an example file that demonstrates the nature of the problem. We do not pull a regression in the software deliberately of course. Sometimes, the kernel will have been moved-on by such an extent that a fault requires some serious coding to fix it as we cannot "rollback" to the earlier code. So, please let us have as simple an example as you can for PCR19462. The senior developer of QuickMill is one of the most innovative and ingenious developers in the industry. I feel he has met very difficult challenges and consistently provided timely solutions. Everybody at VX Corp is doing their best for you.

Rank: 1

Robert

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 9 of 30

06-10-2006 09:44 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi George,

Dr. Dan and I searched the PCR database for your issue but we couldn't find anything (other than the PCR issued on October 4/06). Please tell us which PCR you're referring to so that we can track it down.

A word of advice... if you're submitting PCRs, please give us sample parts and/or pictures which illustrate the current problem and your desired solution.

The most recent PCR # 19462 doesn't have enough information. Please give us some sample parts or pictures.

"Offset 2d rough is still not working right. It jumps around too much before clearing out material that should be cut. have to set to cut regions to NO which makes it jumps round on each level before going to the next level. z"

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 10 of 30

06-10-2006 10:26 . am   |   View his/her posts only
"Offset 2d rough is still not working right. It jumps around too much before clearing out material that should be cut. have to set to cut regions to NO which makes it jumps round on each level before going to the next level. z"

Cut by region enforces QM to do regionwise optimisation that for complex parts can potentially reduce more than 10 times the length of required links. That switch tells to do levelwise or regionwise linking. What I don't understand, from this a bit incomplete description of the problem, why did you need to enforce the product to do so? Maybe when the PCR will be complete will be easier for us here to understand the entire problem.

Rank: 1

Robert

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 11 of 30

06-10-2006 02:46 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Aarron,

You can post anything you'd like on the forum including complaints and negative comments but please, give us something to work with...

We can't find any PCR's or emails from Lake City regarding Offset2D machining.

Here's what I've found from your folks regarding CAM requests:

1) Tool change output definition
2) Pecker Tracks: Although not detected in simulation of machining the actual tool makes short dives into the steel
3) Unsupress multiple: When making different versions of NC program it would be nice to be able to multiple select supress or unsupress.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 12 of 30

06-10-2006 04:43 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
PCR 19095
diary created on July 10 09:24:12 2006
I had first said that offset 2d was jumping around and not staying in the cut like it should in 12.41. In 12.5 it started the crash issue.

I know that I had submitted a pcr as well as spoke to VX about it at the IMTS show. I know that you would like samples of customers issuues but it takes a long time to download files. Customers are usually pressed for time enough without having to send samples in everytime there is an issue. Did any one try and make a test to see what it is doing? If so you would see that offset 2d will start a cut on a level make a few passes, jump down to the next level make a few passes, then go back to the previous level and finish cutting that level.(see pic)

I will get you a file this weekend.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 13 of 30

06-10-2006 05:47 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hello again gjohn

I have just looked at PCR 19095 (VX v12.46, July10), which was assigned to Jim McDonald, a highly experienced CAM expert, who was unable to reproduce your problem. You didn't supply an example file. I have double-checked with two of the leading VX Resellers in Europe (lots of VX CAM customers), to see if they have heard of a problem, or something similar, as you have described it - negative. It could be just luck that no one else has been hit by the problem, it could be caused by something specific to LC. I know it takes a while to upload a large file (it helps a lot if you can offer a small one), but without seeing what you see, what can we do?

Add your sample file to the PCR rather than posting it here, that will be quicker. If you copy the VX file ("Save As" from within VX), you can reduce the file to just the essential geometry and problem operations. To make the file even smaller, select "delete all toolpaths" via the Cam Plan tree operations icon. Also, set display to wireframe, and in the Part Object, via the View menu, select "Clear Facets". You then have a pretty lean VX file to send and using WinZip or WinRar will make it smaller still.

We will get there for you! Have a good weekend

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 14 of 30

09-10-2006 07:15 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello again gjohn




Before reporting my progress over the weekend, I must repeat that we need your file to see your setup for PCR19462. By the way, PCR19095 was about 3d offset, not 2d offset?




I have spent a few hours trying to force a problem to occure in v12.55, based on the screenshot you posted. I think may be you are using bullnose cutters. With a bullnose, there is a chance of leaving small spikes or cusps (artifacts), if the depth of cut is less than the tool end rad.

Reproducing the pocket shape in your screenshot, I can define an operation that leaves small cusps. This is of course a roughing op, and it is a matter of judgment as to whether the op should be tweaked to prevent the cusps. Having run solid verification, one is in a position to make that judgement. In my example, selecting "cusp height" for XY step type is the only tweak required.

Given that this potential problem is revealed by solid verification, it should be possible to avoid breaking tools. However, your point is that v11 gives a better result. I have used exactly the same geometry in both v12.55 and v11.60 to test this, and "straight out of the box", I can indeed see a difference, so I shall pass my files to the developer for critical examination.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 15 of 30

09-10-2006 08:32 . am   |   View his/her posts only
I submitted a pcr on Saturday that contained a file and two screen shots.

It is not just leaving cusps, it is not cutting everything on a level before going down to the next level then it jumps back up to where it should have finished off before going down to the next. I think that this has something to do with why it is crashing. Something is not right.

The only thing that has changed is different versions of VX. Our models are still made the same way, We program the same way. The customer can't afford to troubleshoot the software every time a new version comes out.

I looked up the report on PCR19095 and I mistakingly wrote offset 3d rough when I should have wrote offset 2d rough. That is my fault. There is no such thing as offset 3d rough.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 16 of 30

09-10-2006 09:17 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello gjohn

Thank you for the VX file and marked-up screenshots. We are investigating the issue right now.

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 17 of 30

09-10-2006 09:26 . am   |   View his/her posts only
>>It is not just leaving cusps, it is not cutting everything on a level before going down to the next level then it jumps back up to where it should have finished off before going down to the next. I think that this has something to do with why it is crashing. Something is not right.

It is true in latest QMs by region optimization works a bit different and QM is greedier to chain together regions before doing the finishing step that usually has wider inter region extent and creates more retracts.

George when we alter the product to behave different is because clients ask for this exactly how you ask too. Our goal is to give you the most optimal path and this is the reason why sometimes is changed. We hope that change is an improvement not cripples the product. I suggest you for the moment, if bothers you too much to use an older QM until this problem is fixed to your satisfaction in VX.

Thank you for the PCR and I'm investigating it right now.

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 18 of 30

09-10-2006 10:01 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Theoretical XYMaxStep for circular pocket is 100% Tool.Diameter. On a rectangular pocket is ~70% SQRT(2)/2 * 100. In general for complex parts that can have sharp angles this goes down to ~50%.

Now in reality toolpaths have a lot of smoothing, spiralization, etc and they are not theoretical by any means so to accommodate for all this extra noise in calculation QM had hard clipped this step at 45% Tool.Diameter and this, in general, don't leave any chips and still allowed quite nice smoothing of the path.

Unfortunately (because I will never agree with this by I admit it is some value if you are careful) people decide they want to remove that clamp and move it upper in 85% range. Now QM doesnt have any physical control of the remained chip and if you are like me a nostalgic of old behavior leave the step at 45% as defaulted, because statistically speaking this is the maximum that can be used without leaving chips.

You'll probable wonder why QM doesnt create that useful hears in corners like a lot of traditional CAM systems? The answer is simple because that hears are useful only for very simple pockets and will never solve the chips that occur in complex collapsing scenarios.

I can't talk here too much but in version 13 we have a better Offset2D roughing that we hope will make you happier.

Rank: 1

Paul

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-7-12

Message 19 of 30

09-10-2006 10:19 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Looking at George's screenshot that he attached to this thread I am wondering why the problem that we are having isn't experienced by more customer's.

It is a bad thing to not be able to completely finish a level of cut before the next stepdown. I know this isn't a problem with other CAM packages.

I hope that we aren't viewed negatively because of our issue. If we hit the panic button it's only because we are very dependant on a resolution.

Rank: 1

Robert

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 20 of 30

09-10-2006 11:42 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Viewed negatively... heck no!

We love you guys... you help us create workable solutions.

We are striving to create a stable, reliable, highly-effective product and thank you for helping us accomplish this goal.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 21 of 30

09-10-2006 11:42 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Paulverisor, gjohn

Quick question - operations 1,2 and 4 all have User Defined Containment selected, but no Containment Profile has been added to each op's features list. Which profile should be associated with which op?



Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 22 of 30

09-10-2006 11:42 . am   |   View his/her posts only
>>It is a bad thing to not be able to completely finish a level of cut before the next stepdown. I know this isn't a problem with other CAM packages.

To go down before finishing a level is a tremendous optimization that isn't trivial to code and is present only in very few products QM included. Milling level wise (perfectly possible in QM disabling CutByRegion) like majority of other CAM products is always worst then region wise. Worst means the same toolpath linked level wise can be 10 times slower to mill then a region wise linked path. The only "problem" (we didn't establish it as a problem) is the feeling that current QM is a bit too greedy to go down now because we (I) reduced interpocket interference factor that reduces in general the length of links (the tool will mill more in a region) and obvious because I hate to let people down and have this discussion (like in this thread) we add the interference parameter on the forms too to make everyone happy. I append a screen capture too.

Do I need to recap but I don't believe are any issues to fix/discuss left in this thread?

The step for new opperations is by default 45%, the interference is 30% maybe a bit too greddy 100% will reproduce old QM behavior. As usual to be safe the feeds should be set for a full width cut expected. My feeling is are enough settings there to mill safe with version 12.55.

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 23 of 30

09-10-2006 01:02 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
And because I agree with you we will keep the more conservative setting by default to 100% for interference factor this will lead to a bit more links but will recreate nearly the same path like old QMs so will not change the level so fast. I make my fault too for this change because I was too partial and change it by default but this had happen because it really generates more efficient paths, that's the price to pay for efficiency and as George sad if you enable the safe mill level wise the path is very long to mill. Please don't forget milling by region means try to find possibilities to stay local and go in downdirection minimising links.

Unfortunately I can't promisse this in VXV12.55 but I hope it will be present in VXV12.60. The PCR is 19490.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 24 of 30

09-10-2006 01:30 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
So where do we stand? I would like to move forward and use the latest but there are issues. I have went back to 11.5 but the verify is not up to par, If I solid verify and try to save a workpiece it is metric and does me no good. If I try and keep solid verifying it will get so far then the verify function will fail because of the size of the part. This I know is not a problem in 12.

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 25 of 30

09-10-2006 01:42 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
If you want to use 12.55 recommended because is a so much better version.

Set the interference to 100% and the XY Step in roughing to 40-45%. If you still believe could be crashes set a smaller feed maybe is to high.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 26 of 30

09-10-2006 02:25 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
I tried to set the interference to 100 and it is still dropping down to the next level before it should(see pic) . I do not consider this issue closed. Isn't anyone else having this problem?

Why was % interference added to a bug fix release? It was not in 12.5 but it is in 12.55.

I am sorry to be so critical but I rely on this software every day to make programs for our company.

Rank: 1

Dan

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-26

Message 27 of 30

09-10-2006 02:54 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
>>Why was % interference added to a bug fix release? It was not in 12.5 but it is in 12.55.
It is there because maybe the version 12.5 was a new version with the default of 30% OR 12.55 was the time frame when was possible to add this parameter on the form.

>>I am sorry to be so critical but I rely on this software every day to make programs for our company.
Is your right to be critical in particular when the product doesn't behave as it use to behave.

I will appreciate if you can localize in a part with only one toolpath the problem reported with 100% and if you can zip (rar) it and send it to me if you wabt for a quick inspection.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 28 of 30

10-10-2006 06:19 . am   |   View his/her posts only
You should have the same file that I tried it on that was sent in as a pcr. Just use the 100 % setting and watch it verify.

Right now I have alot of work to do and I don't know what version to use.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 29 of 30

10-10-2006 06:29 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi gjohn

C'mon, help us a little bit more so that we can get you back working as quickly as possible. Which operation? If it is op 1,2 or 4, should it use containment and if so which profile should it be referencing? When you say it is dropping to the next level "before it should", is this because you have detected a crash or gouge?

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 30 of 30

10-10-2006 07:01 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Take you're pick. Use op 1, put in the 100% and watch it verify.on the 3rd or 4th step down you can see that it is still dropping down before it should. It does not need containment. The step down In this case does not apper to be a crash but it is still stepping down the way it was before changing the setting to 100%.

Version 12 2d offset rough does not even cut with the same logic as version 11 2d offset rough did. Version 11 stayed in the cut better, not like 12 where it jumps in and out of the cut all the time. This causes additional problems for cutters.

The file is there for you to compare to. Do you not see the difference? May be we need to get someone up here to see what is going on.
See also
X