Multiple sub clearance

[[Br...]]

Often when I have to measure a hole and its respective counterbore diameter and depth, for efficiency i like to use sub clearance groups for the three features. So I end up making a separate sub clearance for each group of features. Most of the time its just a group of 6-8 holes, but sometimes it can be a lot. I feel like there's something I'm missing here. Do I always need to create that many sub clearances or is there a better way?

[[Ry...]]

Setting up a separate SCP for each bore the SAFEST way.

If you are SURE you will always run the program in the same order, you could play games with only one SCP without an inner plane and move points (or clearance distance applied only on certain features to position the stylus where it needs to be), but you would be setting yourself up for a disaster should the program be run out of order. Changing run order on the run screen (from characteristic list instead of from feature list), using a miniplan that excludes features, re-ordering the feature list, etc, etc will turn your program into a loaded gun should you use only one SCP.

There's a chance you could do something safely with Macros for your repeated measurements that could save navigation, and there's also a chance you could do something with RECALL FEATURE POINTS, breaking one big feature that gathers all your points in each bore of some kind into separate features after physical measurement... you could gather all your points with FREEFORM and then bust the scan paths into planes and circles after, therefore eliminating CP motion between separate features.

Just some ideas... Good luck.

[[Br...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Yeah I definitely don't want to use the same Sub clearance for all of them, or even every other one. Sounds like what I'm doing is the best way. If I ever have to do like 50 or more, I might explore that freeform idea. I don't have PCM otherwise I can think of some conditions I could put in there to save the navigation from crashing.

[[SH...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

You are more innovative,I think you should be product designer then cmm programmer.......

[[Ow...]]

As you're probably aware, if they're in the same axis,,using the predefined retract, you can also choose "no clearance data" and it will just move without the clearance group to the next feature.

[[Ch...]]

All good ideas. I especially like the Freeform suggestion from Ryan.

If you really need to speed up a program, then I've found that Owen's idea of eliminating a lot of clearance planes, adjusting clearance and retract distance, and using position points really works. I don't do this very often because speed is often not a factor for me, quality over quantity, and it can take a lot of up-front programming time. But if you have CMM's that are incorporated into productions lines then this trick can be helpful.

[[Br...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Right, and that is what I'm doing here. The problem is that i have to create a new SCP for each set, otherwise as Ryan pointed out, there's a potential for the machine to crash while navigating if the order of features to be measured ever changed. So when you have a large number of holes/counterbores, you have to make quite a few individual SCP's for each group.

The beauty of Calypso is how dynamic it is--where you can just select any combination of features in any order in a measurement plan and the machine will collect that data no problem. Dmis based software pretty much requires some re-coding in order to achieve something like this. So I'd rather not break that usefulness that if fundamental to Calypso programming.

[[He...]]

With PCM you could have solved this in a very nice way with conditions and different clearence planes/clearance distances based on different settings.

If you want to use a pattern there is a nice feature that you can use that is located inside the sub clearance plane dialog. A checkbox with some text about loop/index or similar. This will run separate indexes of the pattern with a travel to the clearance cube in between.
Like this:

Circle_Hole(1)
Plane(1)
Circle_Counderbore(1)
[Move to parent clearance plane]
Circle_Hole(2)
Plane(2)
Circle_Counderbore(2)
[Move to parent clearance plane]
Circle_Hole(3)
Plane(3)
Circle_Counderbore(3)
Move to parent clearance plane


And so on.

[[Br...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Totally. If i had PCM I wouldn't have an issue.

[[Me...]]

Can someone explain sub clearances, when to use and how to properly set them it up? I've never quite understood because our trainers didn't spend much time at all with them...

[[SH...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

The purpose of sub clearance plane is simply to reduce cycle time. Imagine you have to check 25 holes in same plane, you have to check another feature located left or right side above these holes. In this case your clearance plane is too far from the hole, so you can create a sub clearance plane may be 5mm above these holes. You can reduce the navigation time.

[[Ry...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

YES!!!!!!!!!!

You can cut corners and eliminate clearance planes all together - even use the dreaded "USE POSITION POINTS ONLY" setting on the run screen, but if you are, you are playing with a loaded gun, and you BETTER know what you are doing (and whoever tries to run your program 1 year from now when you are on vacation better know what they are doing)! You can save some time, but you are neutering the power / flexibility of Calypso.

Also, I would avoid ever using "NO CLEARANCE PLANE". You are asking for trouble. I got into a kick of using that about 20 years ago and ended up shooting my adapter plate across the room after I did a "CURRENT SELECTION" run on a proven program to save some time (it eliminated a feature necessary for safe navigation).

Clearance Planes, set up correctly, are "bullet proof".

[[Ch...]]

^^^^^^^^100% Agree. I did forget to add that I don't recommend this for programs that require a lot of human interaction.

Imagine high volume robotically loaded CMM that only runs one program where every second counts. These are the only type of situations I would recommend removing clearance planes.

[[Er...]]

I dont get all this fuzz. That it can collide if you do that, don't do this, etc. You can still do this and keep Calypsos beauty of object orientation. If you are using anything else then clearance planes and a program crash, it bad programming. Period. Always asume operators have a intelligience level equal to a pair of sandals.

I always create conditions, if I use sub clearance planes, navigation by points, customized run orders, random measurement order etc, then if the program runs by anything else than a normal full program run. Pcm takes care of that. There is no way it can collie if you do it that way. If Im lazy, I usually group stuff and names the group "will collide if not run together" or prevent the plan from even start if not run completely.

So what I try to say is. Its not wrong to create sub planes and customized the movements of the machine. Can you save time, you can save money. But do it bullet proof or dont do it. It all comes down to how good of a "programmer" you are.

[[Ma...]]

Shawn

You can check this out

http://www.mbccmm.com/cmmq/index.php/tr ... in-calypso

There is also a video link to watch a video

Mark

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Here's an idea. Consider making a large number of sub-clearance planes, more than you think you might ever need. You could do this in a template program, that way they're always ready for use, as needed.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

I wasn't able to upload this in its powerpoint format....
.

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Was I your trainer?
🤣