hexagon logo

long program run times

I just made a program that has 43 minutes run time. That's the longest I have ever done for a single part. I did a Zeiss program that was 9 hours but it was for 20 parts at the same time. What is some of your run times?
  • So you would measure one half at a time, changing the clearance diameter for each, and then construct your features?
  • Regarding Post#12.1, yes thats what I would do if I was using my clearanceplanes like this while writing that particular program
  • Do you ever use clearance cubes?


    No sir. I am not a fan.

    My reasons:
    1) I don't like that there is no code in my edit window to SHOW me that there is a move. I like to SEE the clearanceplane, movepoint, or moveincriment command(s).
    2) When you use clearance cube, you turn it on/off for each feature off of this list and the interface just feels kind of clunky for me.

    The above being said....the clearance cube DOES work very well. I just haven't taken the time to master it and am proficient using other methods.

    I stick with clearanceplanes, move points, move incriments, and avoidance moves within the autofeature dialogue box (these don't show up in your code unless you F9 the feature...and that kinda sucks...but they're easy to use).
  • Yeah I've never even tried to use one, but I'm the same in that I wouldn't like not being able to see where there is a move. Most programmers I've met don't even like clearance planes because the move/clearplane command doesn't show what level it's at. I think it would be cool if it showed which work plane and what value it's at each time the command is entered. I.E. move/clearplane, ZPLUS, 0.05
  • Yeah I've never even tried to use one, but I'm the same in that I wouldn't like not being able to see where there is a move. Most programmers I've met don't even like clearance planes because the move/clearplane command doesn't show what level it's at. I think it would be cool if it showed which work plane and what value it's at each time the command is entered. I.E. move/clearplane, ZPLUS, 0.05


    I hear ya.

    Thats why i usually probe a plane on the top of my part (or even a point) and I will make PLN_TOP.Z+0.5 my clearance plane and as long as the part isn't too complex thats the one and only clearance plane I have to set and I won;t have to worry about any other movepoints. If you look at it like this, really simplifies stuff
  • I would never use C-C, nope, not happening. Gotta see the code, no code, no idea what it is going to try to do.
  • agree 100% my friend


    I use a clearance plane in every program, and I almost always only use it at the top of the program to clear the part, set the first probe rotation and check the first point/feature. After that it is AUTOMOVES and move/points. I also won't use move/increment in a program BECAUSE, if you get a false trigger during a move/increment for whatever reason, when you tell it to continue, it will try to move the entire increment from it's current position. Nope. I'll use them when making and proving out a program ('cause I'm too lazy to get up and walk over to the machine and jogbox a move). but once I get the probe where I want it, BANG! Move/point and increment is GONE!


  • I use a clearance plane in every program, and I almost always only use it at the top of the program to clear the part, set the first probe rotation and check the first point/feature. After that it is AUTOMOVES and move/points. I also won't use move/increment in a program BECAUSE, if you get a false trigger during a move/increment for whatever reason, when you tell it to continue, it will try to move the entire increment from it's current position. Nope. I'll use them when making and proving out a program ('cause I'm too lazy to get up and walk over to the machine and jogbox a move). but once I get the probe where I want it, BANG! Move/point and increment is GONE!


    HMMMM thats crazy I have never had that issue with false triggering and the move/increment happen to me before but I will keep an eye out for that/keep it in mind, Thanks for that!