Making the machine move

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Making the machine move

    Is there an auto move that people prefer? I myself generally use Move Increments, and Move Points. Is this one of those things that are completely based from person to person? Or is there one specific that is better than the other?

    I really like using Move Increments because the machine will move the the same exact amount inserted every single time. I have (only seldom) had Move Points do some funky things occasionally. I will still use Move Points. Just not as often as Move Increments.

    Just wanted to see what some of the more experienced programmers out there had to say.

    Thanks Ladies and Gents.

  • #2
    Both have their place.

    I rarely use Move Increment because I had a few instances where I had to go back and modify a program some months after it was initially written. If after a modification the position of the probe is different than it was before the modification, Move Increment may need to be adjusted.

    I found, for way I structured my programs, Move Points were robust and less prone to needing to be tweaked anytime the program was altered.

    All that said, it's not a big deal to check and fix Move Increment if you prefer them for whatever reason.
    sigpic"Hated by Many, Loved by Few" _ A.B. - Stone brewery

    Comment


    • #3
      Clear plane with combination of avoidance moves. Once they are set its easy to turn them on /off and delete as needed. Programming OFFLINE or ONLINE really seems to change programmers preference of moves as well. I program OFFLINE 100% from an assembly that contains my part and fixture. I know exactly what clearances what I need and where I need them. Move points are a pain but I do use a move point at the end of program to park the CMM and only use them other places to maybe finesse my way around or into a spot. In general, I cant stand the jerky movement that a ton of move points will give you. NO right or wrong on this kind of thing. Everyone's OCD is slighlty different....
      Last edited by Schlag; 06-24-2020, 04:45 PM.

      Comment


      • ThePudds
        ThePudds commented
        Editing a comment
        Schlag I currently program online. Only been doing it for around 8 months now. Do you prefer offline over online? I like the fact that i can see the machine doing what i tell it to, when i tell it to. Is offline faster? How often do you actually use the CMM? Does your company have 1 specific programmer and then a bunch of operators?

        Sorry if this is bombarding. Iv'e had these questions for a while now but havent really spoken to anyone who programs only offline. Thanks.

      • Schlag
        Schlag commented
        Editing a comment
        Call me a snob but programming on the CMM is like getting pulling teeth while getting an enema t the same time. Get me the **** out of here......Your vectors and nominals need to be corrected. It's the most inefficient method of doing anything. Im getting angry just thinking about it !!! Programing OFFLINE from a cad is the " perfect " program when it comes to nomnals and vectors. Programming on an assembly makes my proveouts such a simple matter. Why tie up the CMM when you could work elsewhere. We have 1 programmer to do all the programming. Its an extremely poor way to do things but Im not in charge and I actually am not the main programmer anymore. I just get called when he is stumped or hoses something up !!

      • ThePudds
        ThePudds commented
        Editing a comment
        I am the programmer and the operator. That's why i was asking. You're not a snob. It's a personal preference. No one can knock you for that. Thanks for the feed back.

    • #4
      I use some combination of clearplanes, move points, move increments, and avoidance moves within auto features. I wouldn't say one method is innately better- they all have their uses. I will use whatever is easiest/quickest for me to generate a fast and efficient program.

      However, I encounter issues with move points being generated in incorrect coordinates when using Paste with Pattern sometimes (I use 2015.1). So i try to avoid move points in sections of code I am planning on patterning.

      Comment


      • #5
        Clear planes, move points and move increment, rarely avoidance move, never used "cube"...
        There's often (depending on versions) a problem with clear planes and basic outter cylinder scans, the move to clear planes goes on the axis, then crash into the edge of the cylinder...

        Comment


        • ThePudds
          ThePudds commented
          Editing a comment
          JEFMAN I do use the avoidance move within the auto feature occasionally. Usually only when the next feature is relatively close to the last. I am super safe with my programs. I am the only person so far at my company that HASN'T broken a probe within the first 6 months of being in the position. I would like to keep it that way. lol

      • #6
        I've found avoidance moves in angled holes very helpful to get in and out of the hole. Largely I use a combination of clearance planes and move points.
        PC-DMIS 2016.0 SP8

        Jeff

        Comment


        • #7
          move point and avoidance are my most common but as stated above each measurement can be unique and require there own specific type of move.

          Comment


          • #8
            incremental moves suck. Unless they have fixed/changed it, if you get a false trigger in the middle of an incremental move, when you tell it to continue, it still wants to move the entire incremental move, but now from it's current location! So if the total move was 100mm, and it went 75 and false-triggered, when you tell it to continue, it wants to go 100mm from where it currently is.
            sigpic
            Originally posted by AndersI
            I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

            Comment


            • ThePudds
              ThePudds commented
              Editing a comment
              While using incremental move points, I havent had any false triggers. Maybe i'm just one of the lucky ones.

            • Matthew D. Hoedeman
              Matthew D. Hoedeman commented
              Editing a comment
              it will depend on your hardware, mostly.

          • #9
            I use clearplanes with avoidance moves the most, next is move increments, and I only use move points if I absolutely have to. I hate move points. Some of our older parts are starting to come in with tooling tabs attached and you have to go and edit every single f***ing move point. With clearplanes, all I have to do is edit a few clearp lines then everything works.

            One of our guys writes programs online so he will set a few features on the cad then execute them and add move points everywhere. So fricking annoying!
            Remembering my beautiful wife Taz who's life was taken from me on 6-13-2020.

            Comment


            • #10
              My CMM has a fixture plate on it & I don't like the operator to touch the jogbox. That being said, I use an external alignment saved on that fixture, then like to make the CMM use a large Z+ clearance-plane to get over my part for the first initial feature. Then, I will use move/increment & move/point to get a solid "DCC_FIND_PART_ALIGN". Once the part is locked in, I'll use a combination of clearance/plane (for big moves, moves after rotations, etc..) and autofeature avoidance moves (moving from feature to feature in local areas) to move around.

              I like to make clearance planes relative to a feature instead of a number whenever possible. Doing this will make your clearance plane always go to the same height regardless of what alignment you're in (you don't have to remember to keep on changing it!) Two examples are below..standard clearance plane of 1 inch CLP that you'd have to remember to change if you moved your Z axis.. and a clearance plane that is always 0.5 inches above the "measured .Z height" of PLN1 regardless of alignment.

              Code:
              PLN1 =FEAT/CONTACT/PLANE/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN,TRIANGLE,LEAST_SQR
              THEO/<0,0,0>,<0,0,1>
              ACTL/<0,0,0>,<0,0,1>
              TARG/<0,0,0>,<0,0,1>
              ANGLE VEC=<0,0,1>,RADIAL
              SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
              SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=NO
              CLEARP/ZPLUS,1,ZPLUS,1,ON
              CLEARP/ZPLUS,PLN1.Z+0.5,ZPLUS,PLN1.Z+0.5,ON
              I have never been a fan of clearance cube. I work with tall cylindrical parts or huge gearbox components with funky geometry so the cube isn't the best tool for me but to each their own.

              I have never seen move/commands in PC DMIS do anything really odd unless I caused it lol. Move commands are dependant upon the alignment they're in...so if I go screwing with alignments and don't pay attention (usually caused by incorrectly answering the YES/NO alignment question that will wreak havoc upon your day if you don't know what it is doing), thats when a move/point or something might change nominals on you.
              Last edited by DAN_M; 06-25-2020, 10:48 AM.

              Comment


              • #11
                Originally posted by DAN_M View Post
                My CMM has a fixture plate on it & I don't like the operator to touch the jogbox.
                So you do everything in DCC from the get go? All the operator has to do is Ctrl+Q, and then answer yes or no to a couple of comments?

                Or is this only for some of your programs?

                Comment


                • ajlee7
                  ajlee7 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I use a similar method. We have dedicated fixtures that are marked with the part number and lock into a specific place on the CMM table. So basically the operators grab the fixture they need and set it up, then go through comment prompts to enter serial numbers etc that we require.

                  I have a specific folder on the desktop where they select the part they need to run and it'll open the program

                • Douglas
                  Douglas commented
                  Editing a comment
                  my comment was gonna be more like... you found machinists that can remove the cover without destroying the sphere?

                • DAN_M
                  DAN_M commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Funny you should ask...

                  No. One time they didn't remove the cover. And the probe did crash into a covered sphere.

                  I had to add "onhiterror" flow control as a poka yoke

              • #12
                Since we're on this subject, anyone here use the MOVE/ALL command?

                Normally I'll do them separately, i.e. move to point first then rotate, but now I'm considering starting to incorporate them into programs (mostly for the coolness factor of rotating while moving).

                To contribute, I mostly use move points. I'll occasionally use increment if I'm for example coming up to rotate, then I'll just tell it to raise up.

                Comment


                • #13
                  move points all the way here, i use move points with clearance cubes off, avoidance moves off... if a machine makes a move it is because I tell it very specifically to do so. Automated approaches might make programming faster and easier but run time for your programs will be longer.... I keep all that stuff off and use move points and almost only move points.

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Here are a couple of links from the Help file:
                    https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...nt_Command.htm
                    https://docs.hexagonmi.com/pcdmis/20...nt_Command.htm

                    Just in case, if it helps.

                    Let us know if anything can be improved in the Help file.

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      My company producing parts in small batches so for me is more important to avoid collision versus save time on run. In all my programs clearancecube is always on. Before any rotation of probe I'm adding move points. All holes I do measure without sample hits so when holes are by angles then I'm adding avoidance moves.

                      Overall I am programming complicated parts, my personal target is high quality programs in short time and that require high concentration and by using clearancecube I don't need at least think about any movements except before changing probe orientation and movement before holes by angles.

                      Comment

                      Related Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X