Mfg associativity when creating mirror body

[raysapp]

This is something that worked well with an unparameterized
solid. I just did a save as, transform-mirror and then a replace component in the mfg file. However with a native file I'm having problems. Since its parametric I have to create a linked mirror body, which of course means no "move" option. I created a ref. set for new part since I can't really disentangle them. When I try replace component I get the "Component to replace is not a version of replacement part" alert, which I suspect means the topology was renumbered when creating the mirror body.

Ray S
NX 7.0.1.7

http://www.appliedprecisionproducts.com

 

[raysapp]

Let me try putting this a different way: Is mirroring a program at the machine still the most cost effective and reliable way to deal with left and rights? That's worked well for 3 axis but my boss is more than a little apprehensive about doing this with multi-axis programs. I'm willing to give it a shot. Verification offline is nice, especially when there are holder collision issues, but mirroring with NX is labor intensive and the different methods have their drawbacks. And I'm willing to live with the conventional cutting.
Any thoughts appreciated.

Ray S
NX 7.0.1.7

http://www.appliedprecisionproducts.com

 

[jpetach]

Ray,

Have you tried setting the "File->Options->Assembly Load Options... -> Allow Replacement" "on" before replacing the component?

Joe

 

[raysapp]

Joe
No I have not and I'll give that a shot. What makes me think this is related specifically to the mirror body (that is, the copied parametric one) is that this worked well before when the component was a dumb solid and I used the old transform (a transgression I know). All the faces updated, even tool vectors defined by associative curves. It was impressive. I was able to regen all the ops with very little tweaking. I've had the same success with different dash numbers (parametric ones). I was walked through this process by someone at GTAC (back when we were on maintenance) and he emphasized the importance of topolgy no getting renumbered. Unfortunately we were just addressing family of part scenarios and not mirror body problems. I can't help but think that in having to copy (since it's parametric) instead of being able to move the solid, its getting renumbered...
Funny thing is, on a different call, back when I was messing with transfoming ops, he was the one who told me most shops, like big airframe ones, still mirror at control.
Thanks for response

Ray S
NX 7.0.1.7

http://www.appliedprecisionproducts.com

 

[wmalan]

Ray, where I work we do large airframe components as well. Up till a couple years ago they did all mirroring at the control (mostly cinci 850/950/960 controls). We used opskips in the operations for reversing spindle as required. It worked ok because of the narrow range of controls. But with the cost of left hand cutting tools using the newer coatings and grinds, that's become prohibitive.

Now we've gone to mirroring in the post after switching all the paths required to conventional.

We use Postworks so we must output cls. We create the as-shown part. Then copy and paste the operations within that same part file for the other hand. We then go through and switch all the tool path to conventional where required (mostly end milling). We use a Journal for doing the planar mirroring which makes quick work of those ops. The Seqmill ops take time as we either reverse the looping and reverse the toolpath in the toopath editor or we just re-pick all (which is safer).

We add a matrix transform for the post to mirror. We then of course Vericut the flipped code to double check output.

Btw we are about the largest airframe shop on the West coast so I think that is where it's going. ;-)

--
Bill

 

[raysapp]

Bill
Thanks for the response. Working in a small shop allows me the latitude to do what I want as long as it works and makes money, but I sometimes wonder if I'm totally out of sync with best practice. I've been doing some tests out at the machine and my confidence in mirroring a mult-axis program at the control has increased. Much as I like verification off-line, I think this is the way to go. What your doing sounds like something a bit outside of my abilities and budget.

Ray S
NX 7.0.1.7

http://www.appliedprecisionproducts.com

 

[wmalan]

Yes. If you stay with mirroring at the control, it's SO much easier.

--
Bill