NX9 cam Q? 5

[doug99959]

so a few months ago we went from NX6 to NX9. the issue I have is in the non cutting moves menu, engage and retract tab, NX9 seems to change or maybe default the minimum clearance value to 50.0 percent of tool, this seems to override any value we have in the length area. this has actually caused me to crash a machine because the engage changed from the linear length value engage of .2 inch to a 50% minimum of tool which made the engage .9 inch. So question is, is the minimum clearance value a customer default value that can be changed or is there something else that we can do to prevent our engage and/or retract values from changing to the 50% Tool value when paths are regenerated.

 

[markrief]

What operation is this? In milling, there have been several fixes and enhancements in this area, and I don't recall exactly what was done between NX 6 and NX 9.

The first thing I would do is open the part in NX 10.0.3 and examine the parameters there.

You can set the initial values for NEW operations by editing the operation in the template part.
For existing operations, if parameters are added or changed by a new release, that is done when part file is opened.

Mark Rief
NX CAM Customer Success
Siemens PLM Software

 

[doug99959]

ok, so these are planar milling paths, and they probably do get changed from the new version when the parts are opened, never really thought about that, but we only noticed it when something in the path is changed and it gets regenerated. I don't have an option to open the files in NX 10 so that is out. And yep setting things in the template files is a really good idea but these are previously created files that we needed to open to make some change to. so I guess the answer is we just have to be aware that the paths engage and retracts may change and watch for it. OK? Thanks for the response.

 

[joycejo]

I have see this in older files that were last save in NX5 or NX6 with planar mill operations when opening them in NX9 or 10. The Minimum clearance is usually the issue. We do a file compare on the posted code from the older program to the new to try and catch these "Surprises" and use Vericut even if it is a minor change.

John Joyce
Manufacturing Engineer
Senior Aerospace CT

 

[markrief]

I'm not sure what you are expecting here. When minimum clearance is used as intended (clearance from the side of the tool to the part), I don't know of any problems.

There have been many enhancements to minimum clearance in non cutting moves, and it should be explained in the release notes or what's new guide. For example, in open areas there was some ambiguity when minimum clearance was reduced to zero, so we added options for you to specify if it should be used to extend, trim and extend, or not at all. Some users tried to fool the system by entering parameter combinations that don't make sense, like setting an engage direction without a distance, so maybe this is one of those unusual situations. In some cases I have even provided customers with journals to adjust the NCM parameters.

Looking at the original post, the user moved from a 2008 release to a 2013 release, and I can't make a recommendation based on the information provided.

If this is causing a problem, contact GTAC and provide a test case that shows the regression. The first thing they will likely do is try it in the current release NX 10.0.3, and see what it does there. From there they can make a recommendation on how to proceed.


Mark Rief
NX CAM Customer Success
Siemens PLM Software

 

[Tingsryd]

@OP
I have seen some field caveats as Mark described but also but Siemens has worked on how NX address new functionality with legacy files. You could try this thread again if you want to supply some more information. Even though we are talking a difference of five major releases, new operation shouldn't break anything. If there is an issue then I encourage you to open an IR with support.

Can you give us more information?

10.0.3

 

[capnhook]

My posts were deleted. This is a thread about NX CAM 9.x., and how it changes previously good operations when regenerating them.

Will Siemens pay for machine crashes now?

These forum moderators should be ashamed of themselves.

Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community..

[green]To the Toolmaker, your nice little cartoon drawing of your glass looks cool, but your solid model sucks. Do you want me to fix it, or are you going to take all week to get it back to me so I can get some work done?[/green]

 

[markrief]

@capnhook I thought it was my memory - I responded to your post, and when I checked back it was gone. Not sure why it was deleted, but if you contact the moderator they should know.
I hope you report this issue to Siemens so that we can resolve the issue.

Mark Rief
NX CAM Customer Success
Siemens PLM Software