Real-Time CNC Simulation: Connect the Display to Verification — working record
Yenra | October 3, 2026
https://yenra.com/real-time-rendering/

Purpose: Prepare and assess a CNC simulation using the correct stock, fixtures, tools, machine configuration and program representation.

Instructions: Make a working copy. Fill the fields below with actual evidence and units. Record unavailable information as unknown, give it an owner, and resolve it before using the record for acceptance. Keep raw evidence by reference. Use the approved method, equipment limits and acceptance rules for your application. This blank record does not establish qualification.

1. Job/part/revision; decision and reviewer
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

2. Machine/control configuration and software version
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

3. Program filename/revision/hash; subprograms; CAM or posted-code input
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

4. Stock and target identities; units; coordinate systems
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

5. Fixture/clamp geometry and positions; omissions
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

6. Cutter/holder/extensions/stick-out; offsets
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

7. Checks enabled; excluded pairs; computational tolerances
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

8. Event: program location / objects / result / classification / action
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

9. Rerun file and evidence; unresolved issues
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

10. Release owner; changes requiring revalidation
   Response / evidence reference: ______________________________

Teaching example (fictional; not acceptance criteria):
Fictional configuration check A first run contains stock and cutter geometry but omits a clamp. It reports no holder collision. In the corrected setup, the holder envelope overlaps that clamp by 1.5 mm at a retract move. The second result identifies an interference in the modeled setup; the first run provided no evidence about the absent clamp. Retain both configurations and the corrected program location so the cause of the changed result is clear.

Primary source context (consult for applicable method and scope):
MachineWorks' machine-simulation description
https://www.machineworks.com/machine-simulation
Vericut's explanation of G-code verification
https://archive.vericut.com/429-g-code-verification/
Vericut's machine-connectivity documentation
https://help.vericut.com/4_vericut_help/95.06_machine_connectivity

Review outcome: accepted / held / further evidence needed
Reviewer and date: __________________
Open actions, owner and due date: __________________