HSMWorks 2016 Open Pockets ?!?!?!?

[SoCalPlaneDoc]

How the heck do you get open pockets to work WITHOUT using adaptive??

weirdest workflow I've ever experienced..

found some guidance for 2011 version but it's not working for me in 2016.

HSMWorks/Solidworks.

Similar Threads:

• HSMWorks Premium 2016 3 year License. SolidWorks toolpath plugin
• Solved V25 How To : Open Pockets
• Need Help!- Open Pockets
• Open pockets
• Open Pockets

[cygnus x-1]

Which toolpath do you want to use? Can you post the part, or at least a screen shot of it? The trick is to get the model and stock selections right, which is a little different in HSMWorks compared to other CAM software.


C|

[sergio12]

Do you mean something like this?

[warrenb]

Open pocketing is the only real complaint with HSMworks I have. There is a non intuitive relation between picking stock via the job setup and stock contours in the operation. Because of this I will define pockets with a sketch and define a start point. It is not the most effecient method but I am not a production shop.

The benefits of HSM have faf outweighed these minor inconveniences. I have a budget for all the big boys and went with them. Especially nice is working on my parts while the toolpaths regen in the back ground. Maybe others do that but none of the demos I tested did that.

[SoCalPlaneDoc]

Open pocketing is the only real complaint with HSMworks I have. There is a non intuitive relation between picking stock via the job setup and stock contours in the operation.

EXACTLY! my feeling precisely. I too am working on my own stuff, all the pros where I work use Mastercam. I'm seriously considering switching teams..

Here's the part that was vexing me..




I too used a sketch as a work-around but my tolerance for that is thin.
Tried to upload the Solidworks file but this site keeps telling me it's invalid.. what ever happened to quality apps anyway?


thanks guys,.

[cygnus x-1]

Have a look at this. A few things to point out:

The 2D operations don't really look at the stock defined in the job setup like the 3D operations do. At best they see a bounding box that surrounds the stock defined in the job setup. So with the 2D operations you need to use existing model geometry or create sketches for stock definition (or model definition if needed). The good part about this is that it gives you more control over the tool paths and allows you to do things that would violate the 3D model. The bad part is that it requires more effort from the programmer. A fair trade off I think.

The 2D pocket strategy is incredibly dumb and only looks at the edges you select. Faces sometimes work but many times not so stick to selecting edges. Any closed contour will be considered a pocket and will be machined from the inside. Closed contours within closed contours will be considered islands and not machined. Multiple nested closed contours may do odd things so be careful there.

To do open pockets you need to select all of the appropriate edges to form an open contour, AND you need to enable stock contours. This tells it that you want to do an open pocket. From here you will see arrows the indicate which side of the open contour will be machined. You can reverse the model edges if needed and you can also select closed contours as places to avoid like islands. You can define specific areas to be machined by selecting additional edges (or sketches) as stock contours. Many times you don't need to specify the stock contours explicitly, but sometimes you do. This is helpful if there are areas you want to ignore for some reason.

Lastly, for whatever reason geometry and stock selection for 2D adaptive vs. 2D pocket is a little different. I only rarely use 2D pocket for open areas so it throws me off sometimes too. The way 2D adaptive works makes more sense to me, but I'm sure the developers have their reasons for what they do. Incidentally, HSM CAM for Inventor and Fusion360 use a different selection mechanism that will (I think probably) be ported back to HSMWorks someday. When (and if) that will happen I don't really know. My point being that there is still work going on in this area.



C|

[SoCalPlaneDoc]

Thanks Cyg, that's a great help.

I had done just as you said but HSM refused to give me a toolpath. I think it was because the groove I was attempting to make was .080 using a .062 bit. TIny, I know but it appears that even though the sketch-driven closed pocket worked, model feature-driven open pocket would not.
It would be nice to know just what the clearance requirements are both for this kind of case and for adaptive.

[SoCalPlaneDoc]

Here's another example.. today I can not figure out why HSM wont let me interpolate a .375 hole using a 1/4" end mill.

[cygnus x-1]

Thanks Cyg, that's a great help.

I had done just as you said but HSM refused to give me a toolpath. I think it was because the groove I was attempting to make was .080 using a .062 bit. TIny, I know but it appears that even though the sketch-driven closed pocket worked, model feature-driven open pocket would not.
It would be nice to know just what the clearance requirements are both for this kind of case and for adaptive.

There are a few things that can affect this. I usually get tripped up by the minimum ramp diameter on the linking tab. Also try turning off the lead in/out and see if that helps. For adaptive there is also a minimum cutting radius (on passes tab) that limits how far it can go into tight spaces and corners. And then of course check the stock to leave value. There are other things but those are the usual suspects.

0.08 width with a 0.062 bit should work with 2D pocket or 2D contour. You might be able to get adaptive to work but that's getting pretty close.


C|

[warrenb]

EXACTLY! my feeling precisely. I too am working on my own stuff, all the pros where I work use Mastercam. I'm seriously considering switching teams..

Here's the part that was vexing me..




I too used a sketch as a work-around but my tolerance for that is thin.
Tried to upload the Solidworks file but this site keeps telling me it's invalid.. what ever happened to quality apps anyway?


thanks guys,.

For 2D open pockets I just add a sketch. I find that faster then picking and choosing to get it just right.

I've tested out Solidcam and they have a little more control where you can chose open edges but HSMworks integrated better in my opinion. I haven't used MasterCAM for a couple years so don't know how they do it now. I did the same thing and created sketches.

My fear now with Autodesk owning HSM works and no upgrades for the past year and not integrating with the lates 2017 SW release is it will soon be abandonware. It's too bad.

[cygnus x-1]

My fear now with Autodesk owning HSM works and no upgrades for the past year and not integrating with the lates 2017 SW release is it will soon be abandonware. It's too bad.

People were worried about this when AD acquired HSM over 4 years ago, and it still hasn't happened. HSMWorks 2017 (which supports SWX2017) was released back in mid December.

Not only that, they just announced in the last couple days or so that they are combining the licensing for HSM CAM, such that having a subscription to either HSMWorks (SWX) or Inventor HSM entitles you to use the other, AND also gives you access to Fusion Ultimate. So it's essentially buy one get two free.

They are not killing HSMWorks anytime soon.


C|

[warrenb]

People were worried about this when AD acquired HSM over 4 years ago, and it still hasn't happened. HSMWorks 2017 (which supports SWX2017) was released back in mid December.

Not only that, they just announced in the last couple days or so that they are combining the licensing for HSM CAM, such that having a subscription to either HSMWorks (SWX) or Inventor HSM entitles you to use the other, AND also gives you access to Fusion Ultimate. So it's essentially buy one get two free.

They are not killing HSMWorks anytime soon.


C|

Huh... My reseller never called and the HSM website still brags about their HSM 2016 release from Dec 2015. (www.hsmworks.com)

My concerns with AD acquiring DelCAM and phasing it in with HSMworks as a subscription only entity. I don't think AD feels like paying Moduleworks for the advanced surfacing toolpaths any longer.

[cygnus x-1]

Huh... My reseller never called and the HSM website still brags about their HSM 2016 release from Dec 2015. (HSMWorks ? Integrated CAM for SolidWorks)

My concerns with AD acquiring DelCAM and phasing it in with HSMworks as a subscription only entity. I don't think AD feels like paying Moduleworks for the advanced surfacing toolpaths any longer.

Yeah. They aren't very good about communicating what's going on though. I think I'll bring up the outdated website on their forum.
The best place to find out about new releases is the download section. And if you check the development versions they seem to never go more than about a month without a release.

Download HSMWorks | HSMWorks ? Integrated CAM for SolidWorks


Delcam I know nothing about.


C|

[SoCalPlaneDoc]

Funny how a question about open pockets evolves into other discussions...

I discovered what my difficulty was,, there's a setting that controls the diameter of the spiral plunge that I was unaware of. It my case it resulted in the tool exceeding the boundries of the cut and HSM would not generate any code.. making the spiral smaller fixed it.

[cygnus x-1]

Funny how a question about open pockets evolves into other discussions...

I discovered what my difficulty was,, there's a setting that controls the diameter of the spiral plunge that I was unaware of. It my case it resulted in the tool exceeding the boundries of the cut and HSM would not generate any code.. making the spiral smaller fixed it.

The minimum entry helix diameter. That one still gets me sometimes.


C|