Coolant info tied to cutter

BobCAD-CAM Software Discussions Feature Requests
#1

Hi everybody,

image
In Machining Data default setting is always Coolant = Flood.
What do you think about enhancing the Tool Library with a Coolant attribute, that will be used as default value in the Machining Data?
Nevertheless the Coolant field in Machining Data should remain as opportunity to make a temporary change for the current operation. Possible values to choose: System (=default), Off, Flood, Mist, Air. Easy to recognize, that System tells to use the Coolant set in the Tool Library :wink:

Regards, Harald

#2

IMHO…i think that works as it should…while most machines use an M8 code for flood…sometimes mist/coolant thru air M-codes can vary from machine to machine…or might not be applicable at all…this feature seems as good as it can be

#3

and actually i might add…i believe that that info will be “tied” to a cutter…or rather a process if you save it as a machining template…i believe…

#4

I agree with the Bigman

1 Like
#5

hmm… I do not want BC to destroy the feature as lot of people are already working this way. My extend would not cancel it at all. It would be an improvement for BC. If someone do not want to use it, no problem. He will not have to set a coolant in the Tool Library, which itself stores the cutter parameters with coolant info “unassigned”, that behaves the system to work as usual.
But I know a lot of people coming from other CAM software (me too before knowing BC) build their Tool Library that way, to give the cutter the info to work with coolant (what ever mode) or not. Those people also mainly assign the cutter name like “Wood-Roughing 6mm” using no Coolant. Exactly the same cutter is also good e.g. for Aluminum (and plastic, and …) and therefore a second tool in the Tool Library called “Alu-Roughing 6mm” using Coolant (Flood, Mist, …) will be defined. So choosing the cutter “Wood-Roughing 6mm” or “Alu-Roughing 6mm” there is no need to double check, if Coolant in the “Machining Data” is proper set. I can reflect on the setting within the Tool Library if in “Machining Data” the Coolant will be default set to “Tool” (may be better understandable as in my opening memo called “System” :wink: ).

It is not that I write arbitrarily. But BC is the first CAM-Software where I see such a Tool handling Library (including the Material Library; honestley I also do not use, because…!) as BC just does it. And I think to know a lot of other CAM software (including Inventor, VisualMill, SprutCam, …) and all have Coolant be preset in the Tool Library.

IMHO it should be worth a thought to enhance BC this (or at least in a similar) way. there are certainly a dozen or so people out there who want to make a CAM change…

Regards, Harald

1 Like
#6

ahhh but that’s where the templates come into play…you can set up the template using the tool that you want to use with coolant etc…and save that…so your whole operation is saved as you’d like it…the tool library is just that…a tool library…it holds your tools(# of flutes,sfm,ipm,profile and such) using coolant or such is machining data and thus you save it to your machining template so when you call up your “wood-Roughing” template…all your info is there…tool,speed and feeds,and if you’re using coolant or not…

#7

@Bigman, I completely understand the way, you like to work and it is quite o.k. This might be true sometime for me and a lot of other people. But there are situations, where using templates doesn’t make sense. I am using BC in two different ways: doing work I have to do for customers and distributing milling machines and therefore have to offer CAM software. Most issues I wrote is because customers come to my garage, where we do workshops to get the best bundle of machine/spindle/clamping/control unit/CAD/CAM/… I have to fulfill requirements from small to large machine sizes, working against steel to paper having spindle with/without tool changer doing 2,5D to full 3D with 3 to 5 axis and a CAM software (you can imagine I prefer to do it with BC), that should compete against CAM-Systems customers already know or I have to convince BC is best suited. There it is not simple, if during the workshops BC does not do it in such a way, as it would be helpful or the customer wants it to do. Especial if I know there is software on the market doing this in a simpler manner.

I would simply like to ask what speaks against improvements, if they can fulfill your, my and other’s ideas. It can only be a benefit for BC and all those involved using it. Scratching my left ear with my right hand behind my head is certainly possible. But there are also simpler/other methods.
Any company would be foolish not to examine the competing products of other manufacturers. So for this topic shouldn’t it be questioned why quite a few other CAM manufacturers handle the Coolant parameter with the tool?

Bye, Harald

#8

i guess i understand that…but really…the way i look at it…and this comes from many years in the machining industry…and using a couple of different softwares…including programming conversationally(which i hate i might add)…every one had tools which you select and then apply the machining parameters to them…the tool info needs a length,a diameter,and a tool profile(i.e. shape) and really that’s about it…i understand what you want to add to make it easier…but when you start adding machine parameters to that…things can get cluttered real fast and ultimately make things more difficult in the end… the template approach keeps that confusion down to a minimum… when you save your template and you call it back up the tools that you’ve used is there(hopefully…i’m looking at you support)along with the specific parameters that you’ve selected for that tool/operation…sometimes trying to make things easier only serves to make things more complicated…kind of like 3 rights make a left kind of thing

#9

yes, I completely agree, if tool and operations can be used for further applications. Therefor templates can be used excellently and effectively. In other cases (new material, new cutter, operation with changed parameters, …) the way via templates is not useful. This is actually always the case for prototyping or tasks, that should be done quick. This is also the reason, why the material library do not work for me.

As already said, what’s the harm in BC offering both variants? The decision for such a CAM-SW can only increase.

Bye, Harald