Stock setup Vs Stock model

[Shiva.aero]

Hello everyone! I just started learning Mastercam.

I learnt that there are 2 ways of setting up the stock. One is Stock setup and another is Stock model. 

Can someone explain the difference please? If Stock model is used to transfer remaining stock between the operations, then what is the use Stock setup in the Machine group?

Thank you.

[Colin Gilchrist]

1 hour ago, Shiva.aero said:

Hello everyone! I just started learning Mastercam.

I learnt that there are 2 ways of setting up the stock. One is Stock setup and another is Stock model. 

Can someone explain the difference please? If Stock model is used to transfer remaining stock between the operations, then what is the use Stock setup in the Machine group?

Thank you.

Stock Setup in Machine Group Properties is only used to setup Stock Material for the Verify Function. It is the "original method" of defining Verify stock.

Before the Stock Model Operation was invented, the Programmer had to "manually manage in-process stock  process". This means you had to verify your Operations up to a certain point, then "save the STL from Verify". This STL was external to Mastercam, and used a Static File Path for location. So if you moved the Mastercam or STL Files, the link was broken.

Stock Model was created to "manage stock" within the Mastercam File. It can be used for "Initial Stock", but more often is used to generate 'in-process stock', and can be used for 'Stock' for an Operation. The important thing is that it represents the in-process stock, so the Toolpath will "know" where the remaining material is. The Toolpath algorithm can then "trim away" the parts of the path where the cuts do not remove any material. 

[Shiva.aero]

Thank you Colin!

So there is no need to do Stock setup?

Are we going to miss anything if we directly use Stock model for the initial stock?

[Colin Gilchrist]

7 minutes ago, Shiva.aero said:

Thank you Colin!

So there is no need to do Stock setup?

Are we going to miss anything if we directly use Stock model for the initial stock?

The functions are basically equivalent. It is really just personal preference on which to use. However, there is still one advantage to using the Stock Setup function. When you have your models Shaded, the Stock Setup (red) always shows as Translucent, even though your other solids are opaque. 

I typically do not use a Stock Model for "initial stock". I only use it for in-process stock. However, both work for specifying stock for Verify.

[crazy^millman]

1 hour ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

The functions are basically equivalent. It is really just personal preference on which to use. However, there is still one advantage to using the Stock Setup function. When you have your models Shaded, the Stock Setup (red) always shows as Translucent, even though your other solids are opaque. 

I typically do not use a Stock Model for "initial stock". I only use it for in-process stock. However, both work for specifying stock for Verify.

I am the completely opposite in that mind set. I almost never use Stock Setup and always use Stock Models to define my stock. You have a valid point about the RED outline, but the problem is when making setup sheets and other things that red box is only part of the picture. When I am teaching someone to use Mastercam and they have a Standard geometric Shape they are using for stock then I tell them to make a Solid Model. Then when making setup sheets and other documentation it just looks cleaner. I like to always use a stock model for Opti-Rough and by having that already defined from the start then no need to go back and define it after the fact. We all use the software in different ways and here is a good instance of personal preference.

When teaching others Mastercam I try to always make this comment. My way is not the right way it is just a way in which I use the software to get the job done. End of the day as long as we accomplish the task of making the best part possible without wasting time we have accomplish that task. 

[David Colin]

3 hours ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

The functions are basically equivalent. It is really just personal preference on which to use. However, there is still one advantage to using the Stock Setup function. When you have your models Shaded, the Stock Setup (red) always shows as Translucent, even though your other solids are opaque. 

I typically do not use a Stock Model for "initial stock". I only use it for in-process stock. However, both work for specifying stock for Verify.

 I just want to point out that you can use appearance mode and setting stock models to glass mode. This trick makes it possible to display stock models translucent and the other models opaque

[Chally72]

Colin has hit upon the use cases pretty well, and Ron programs in the same method I do- in that I usually disregard stock setup and start with a stock model. For pretty much every program I create, a stock model is Op #1 in the toolpath manager. Here are some videos that I created for education that go into the use/view details of each type of stock model and provide examples. Video #2 gets into how to transfer stock between different machine groups, move lathe to mill stock, etc. Please excuse the poor audio quality of video #1!

 

 

 

 

[[email protected]]

Wow after reading this thread I really need to watch Chally's videos 100%! I feel really old school now using stock setup. I don't know if anyone else used to program this way but for a while I used to program every op in a different .mcam file and actually move the .stl into place for every op. After too many ops I would notice the .stl would get more errors of random flat triangles sticking out of edges. Lately on some parts I have been using Machine Groups to keep my ops seperated inside the same .mcam file the only issue is not having all the tools from the first machine group automatically available in new operations. but If you use toolpath groups instead they are still listed in any new operations you start. Also when using multiple planes for different ops in the same .mcam file sometimes it can create issues if you have to use dimensions. I attached a zip2go of a time where I had to make new plane to dimension something on my 7th operation. Anyway I have been weighing the pros and cons of which way I approach each job hopefully adopting the stock model will help streamline things. 

zip2go.ZIP

[mcruz34]

I cannot find this file in Tech Exchange.

Is it possible that it's not there? Or am I not looking in the correct place?

[Colin Gilchrist]

On 7/8/2021 at 2:14 PM, [email protected] said:

Wow after reading this thread I really need to watch Chally's videos 100%! I feel really old school now using stock setup. I don't know if anyone else used to program this way but for a while I used to program every op in a different .mcam file and actually move the .stl into place for every op. After too many ops I would notice the .stl would get more errors of random flat triangles sticking out of edges. Lately on some parts I have been using Machine Groups to keep my ops seperated inside the same .mcam file the only issue is not having all the tools from the first machine group automatically available in new operations. but If you use toolpath groups instead they are still listed in any new operations you start. Also when using multiple planes for different ops in the same .mcam file sometimes it can create issues if you have to use dimensions. I attached a zip2go of a time where I had to make new plane to dimension something on my 7th operation. Anyway I have been weighing the pros and cons of which way I approach each job hopefully adopting the stock model will help streamline things. 

zip2go.ZIP

I realize this is an old thread, but wanted to mention something, which may help with the availability of moving tools from your 1st Machine Group, to the other machine groups.

I will typically create a "Part File Tool Library" ("part_name" or "job number".tooldb). When programming the 1st Machine Group, I'm typically pulling tools from a large master tool library, and creating/editing the tools as needed for that 1st Setup.

When finished with that 1st program, I will go into the Tool Manager (for lathe files, need to do this twice, once for mill tools, and again for lathe tools), and I will select "all used tools" from my "part tools", and use the 'down arrow button' on the dialog to copy all of those tools to the 'part_file.tooldb'. There is no "save button", but when you close the Tool Manager, you'll be asked if you want to save the changes to your tool library? (yes)

Then, when I load the 2nd machine group, I can simply select this 'part_file.tooldb' as my Tool Library, and I've got all of those previously programmed tools from the 1st Setup, ready to bring into my next Machine Group.

If I add new tools during the following setups (maybe I add a couple of tools on the 3rd Setup...), I can use the Tool Manager, to copy my "part tools" (from that setup), into the 'part_file.tooldb' file, and those tools are now available in my other Machine Groups, so long as I pick that library.

Note: you can switch up libraries on-the-fly while programming. So, if you've got a tool in 'Mill_Inch.tooldb', you can simply open the Tool Manager, pick that other library, copy the tool into your 'Part Tools' section of the manager (up arrow button), and then switch back to your 'part_file.tooldb'.

I typically ignore any warnings about creating duplicate tools. I probably have 200+ "T1's", in my Mill_Inch.tooldb. I just use the filtering functions to select the tools I'm after.

[AMCNitro]

On 6/26/2021 at 10:19 AM, crazy^millman said:

I am the completely opposite in that mind set. I almost never use Stock Setup and always use Stock Models to define my stock. You have a valid point about the RED outline, but the problem is when making setup sheets and other things that red box is only part of the picture. When I am teaching someone to use Mastercam and they have a Standard geometric Shape they are using for stock then I tell them to make a Solid Model. Then when making setup sheets and other documentation it just looks cleaner. I like to always use a stock model for Opti-Rough and by having that already defined from the start then no need to go back and define it after the fact. We all use the software in different ways and here is a good instance of personal preference.

When teaching others Mastercam I try to always make this comment. My way is not the right way it is just a way in which I use the software to get the job done. End of the day as long as we accomplish the task of making the best part possible without wasting time we have accomplish that task. 

I used stock setup for the first operations group and stock model thereafter.  What's the benefit of using stock model exclusively?  Wondering if I'm missing out on something.

[crazy^millman]

1 hour ago, AMCNitro said:

I used stock setup for the first operations group and stock model thereafter.  What's the benefit of using stock model exclusively?  Wondering if I'm missing out on something.

Not missing out really comes down to personal preference on something like this. That is one the major strengths of Mastercam. Many ways to accomplish the task. I listed my reasoning and why I go about it the way I do. It is up to each of us to determine what suits our work flow and process.