I am trying to mill a simple .8 inch diameter, .5 in depth pocket in the flat end of a 1.3 inch diameter piece of stock. I programmed it in conversational mode and I kept getting weird errors and warnings about program too long (over 100,000 lines) and movements exceeding limits. I managed to reduce the movements and kill the oversize issue but when running, Z goes down to touch the top of stock then instantly moves the table over to the limits of X and Y and calls it finished. Z does not return to safety height,
Is someone willing to look at the code and tell me what is going on? This is not the first pocket I have done before, the stock is probed, the tool is measured, multiple attempts to start from scratch all end the same.
Sound like your tool description has a problem. Or something else weird. Unless you’re using the smallest tool in the universe it shouldn’t be over 100,000 lines.
That issue was apparently due to my using to small a depth of cut that resulted in too many passes. I fixed that. I gave up on Pathpilot and modeled the part in Fusion but now the tool goes far too deep in Z. I probed the top of the stock and set that as zero but the machine seemed to think zero was a few inches lower.
FWIW, when I use reasonable parameters (e.g. 10-20% WOC and matching appropriate DOC) conversational is usually very conservative for me for simple stuff like this when using the feed/speed calculator built into PP for a given material.
You probably know this but a final check for Z that I use is to load the GC I intend to run and carefully jog (with the tool in the spindle) next to the stock. Go to Z0 and lowest Z and see that they “make sense”.
Ditto for the XY origin with the tool well above the stock.
As careful as I try to be, I’ve still caught wrong work offsets and other brain lapses before hitting cycle start doing this. I also have gotten in the habit of reeling in the feed and speed approaching the stock.
I hardly ever run the same program as I’m what would be considered 100% prototyping, and building out a job spec sheet would be the “right way” for each run but formally doing so is a lot of work. Having a pre cycle-start checklist is probably the next best thing (as well as checking in simulation).
Same here regarding every job is a one off prototype. I often 3D print to confirm before milling metal.
I finally got the pocket thing working but I used boring instead and tested on aluminum first. It worked for the bore but for some reason left a .25 inch column sticking up from the bottom at the center of the 1 inch bore using a 3/8 tool. The column has a little crescent cut out of one side but none of it should be there. Did I miss something in the code that should have cleaned up the bottom of the pocket?
IIRC the F360 “Boring” toolpath only cuts the walls so pocketing or adaptive clearing toolpaths would be more suitable. That ought to show up in simulation if you have the stock programmed correctly.
My education/background is software engineering. Computers do what we tell them to do. Machining just extends that idea of programming to the physical world where you have “real money” on the table in your work material and tools (and machine/probe/etc. if your programming/crash is really bad).
My answer to that question is always that I either programmed or initially set the machine up wrong. The issue is what specifically did I do (or not do) to cause the incorrect outcome. Given enough time to investigate, I have found it to be my fault 100% of the time, it’s just that what the problem was, was not tested/checked or obvious at the time I pushed cycle start…
Parallels in other disciplines: took a baking/cooking class. In more formal training, we were told that students are required to prepare “mise en place”: all ingredients measured/laid out as documentation beforehand.
Photos and GC or Fusion file would likely reveal the source of the discrepancy.
You got it! I didn’t notice the first time I ran the simulation that the bottom was not fully cleared. I went back after your response and ran it at slower speed and it showed the remnant “column”.
Boring did a good job so I will try drilling the center first so at least the tool has a lighter load. I don’t need a perfectly flat bottom so the drill point doesn’t matter.
I just used 2d boring in fusion for the first time and was surprised that it does a ramp at full tool cutting speed. Not sure if it’s supposed to be this way but I know you can’t ramp at full speed so something to look at.
Yes, I tried a test bore in aluminum and quickly discovered that issue! I reduced feed to a very low rate and it worked well. If I had tried that in steel it would have quickly ended badly.