Tool Manager

[BBprecise]

How many like the new Tool Manager and the splitting up of the tools, assemblies and holders in the lower half of the manager?

I do not like it, and the fact I can't save a tool to the library right after I created it w/o making 4 other mouse clicks because MC in it's infinite wisdom automatically assigns the "Default" holder to a tool as soon as the tool is created. Which prevents you from using the down arrow to save the tool, so why even have the down arrow even there, or even have the Tools tab in that case because you cannot save a tool to the tab from what I can tell.

 

[JB7280]

On 3/18/2022 at 8:53 AM, BBprecise said:

How many like the new Tool Manager and the splitting up of the tools, assemblies and holders in the lower half of the manager?

I do not like it, and the fact I can't save a tool to the library right after I created it w/o making 4 other mouse clicks because MC in it's infinite wisdom automatically assigns the "Default" holder to a tool as soon as the tool is created. Which prevents you from using the down arrow to save the tool, so why even have the down arrow even there, or even have the Tools tab in that case because you cannot save a tool to the tab from what I can tell.

 

I dislike the fact that MC automatically puts a default holder onto the tool, but I do like the fact that it now splits up holders.  I think it still needs a lot of work, but it's on the right path by separating the components.   

[BBprecise]

Just now, JB7280 said:

I dislike the fact that MC automatically puts a default holder onto the tool, but I do like the fact that it now splits up holders.  I think it still needs a lot of work, but it's on the right path by separating the components.   

"Splits up holders"? Not sure what you mean.

Until about 2018 or so I used to have my holders in one library (actually 2 as I had one for CT40 and another for BT50), and another library with all of my tools. Right around ver. 2018 or so I put all of my CT40 holders in the same library as my tools because we only have one BT50 machine so when I set my default mill tool library it automatically pulled in my CT40 holders. If there was an option to set the default holder library I wouldn't have combined them.

Until ver. X (I think, it could have been later) you didn't even have a holder library. Mastercam only used one file for the holder so if you needed to check your holder against the toolpath or fixture you had to create a mastercam file with a 2d sketch of the holder you wanted to use and name it holder.default (or something like that after renaming the default file to something else) then when you backplotted/verified the tool path you saw the holder you were gonna use. When I was done, I would delete my holder file and rename the original back.

A lot of work, so yeah it's come a long ways, but I'm just not sure why they added this function.

I can list other reasons why I don't like this new layout but I'll stop here.

 

[JB7280]

6 hours ago, BBprecise said:

"Splits up holders"? Not sure what you mean.

Until about 2018 or so I used to have my holders in one library (actually 2 as I had one for CT40 and another for BT50), and another library with all of my tools. Right around ver. 2018 or so I put all of my CT40 holders in the same library as my tools because we only have one BT50 machine so when I set my default mill tool library it automatically pulled in my CT40 holders. If there was an option to set the default holder library I wouldn't have combined them.

Until ver. X (I think, it could have been later) you didn't even have a holder library. Mastercam only used one file for the holder so if you needed to check your holder against the toolpath or fixture you had to create a mastercam file with a 2d sketch of the holder you wanted to use and name it holder.default (or something like that after renaming the default file to something else) then when you backplotted/verified the tool path you saw the holder you were gonna use. When I was done, I would delete my holder file and rename the original back.

A lot of work, so yeah it's come a long ways, but I'm just not sure why they added this function.

I can list other reasons why I don't like this new layout but I'll stop here.

 

I should say, I like that they've added a way to use "components"  or extensions, etc to your holder without having to include it in the holder, or tool build-up.  I like that there are separate tabs for holder, tools, and assemblies because that's how it is in the real world.  I don't want to have to build a new version of a Helical 03377 every time I want to use it in a different holder.  I suppose this all depends on how your shop works.

[BBprecise]

I think I get what you mean now.

I agree that how you can add extensions to your holder w/o creating it as a complete holder is nice, except I didn't see a way to shorten the ext. in the holder, but I could have missed something as I only experimented real quick.

Yeah, how MC instantly adds a holder now is a pita unless you create it in the tool tab. I always wonder who vets new versions out and such because sometimes when things come out I'm like HTH did this get by QC. They way MC sends out new "options" knowing there's a problem or quirks would be like a programmer sending out code to a machine and telling the operator "Yeah it's gonna crash, so you'll have to find a way around it until I decide it's worth my time fixing it".

MC has come a long ways from ver. 5.5, but some things are like .

 

[JB7280]

6 minutes ago, BBprecise said:

I think I get what you mean now.

I agree that how you can add extensions to your holder w/o creating it as a complete holder is nice, except I didn't see a way to shorten the ext. in the holder, but I could have missed something as I only experimented real quick.

Yeah, how MC instantly adds a holder now is a pita unless you create it in the tool tab. I always wonder who vets new versions out and such because sometimes when things come out I'm like HTH did this get by QC. They way MC sends out new "options" knowing there's a problem or quirks would be like a programmer sending out code to a machine and telling the operator "Yeah it's gonna crash, so you'll have to find a way around it until I decide it's worth my time fixing it".

MC has come a long ways from ver. 5.5, but some things are like .

 

Right click, then "Edit Tool Assembly" in the Tool Manager.  Another one of those things that MC lets you do in one place, but not another (like where you attach the holder in the toolpath)

 

I still wish it didn't force you to add a tool # until you create an assembly.  But I always just number my tools 9999 until they're in use.  

[crazy^millman]

Funny to see the same exact things being mentioned I have complained about for years coming up in this thread to be told I was crazy for such thoughts. Watch it people will start calling you crazy before you know it.

[BBprecise]

Just now, crazy^millman said:

Funny to see the same exact things being mentioned I have complained about for years coming up in this thread to be told I was crazy for such thoughts. Watch it people will start calling you crazy before you know it.

Start to call me crazy? Bud, people have been calling me crazy for a few decades now.

I don't complain about MC much as compared to when I 1st started on 5.5 back in the late 90's things are so much better, but I just don't see anybody (let alone thousands of users) asking for this kind of setup. It just doesn't seem to make sense, and what new functionality they added probably could have been added to existing methods and allow resources and time spent in other area's that need the work. For me the tool side of programming is one of the least significant steps in comparison to toolpaths/options that don't work right and you have to find a work around for.

Personally, when MC went to committing to putting out a new version every year back in the early/mid 2000's things started to slide. This kind of motto drives the "lets get new features out, and worry about fixing things later" motto. Lets get all the bugs worked out before we worry about "new" features, but what do I know. Only been in the trade for 27yrs.

[crazy^millman]

20 minutes ago, BBprecise said:

Start to call me crazy? Bud, people have been calling me crazy for a few decades now.

I don't complain about MC much as compared to when I 1st started on 5.5 back in the late 90's things are so much better, but I just don't see anybody (let alone thousands of users) asking for this kind of setup. It just doesn't seem to make sense, and what new functionality they added probably could have been added to existing methods and allow resources and time spent in other area's that need the work. For me the tool side of programming is one of the least significant steps in comparison to toolpaths/options that don't work right and you have to find a work around for.

Personally, when MC went to committing to putting out a new version every year back in the early/mid 2000's things started to slide. This kind of motto drives the "lets get new features out, and worry about fixing things later" motto. Lets get all the bugs worked out before we worry about "new" features, but what do I know. Only been in the trade for 27yrs.

35 years here and agree more about hitting the yearly names then the quality of what this product use to be.

[JB7280]

22 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Funny to see the same exact things being mentioned I have complained about for years coming up in this thread to be told I was crazy for such thoughts. Watch it people will start calling you crazy before you know it.

I believe we had this same conversation when I mentioned adding folder support to the levels manager.  

[[email protected]]

On 3/21/2022 at 1:31 PM, BBprecise said:

I think I get what you mean now.

I agree that how you can add extensions to your holder w/o creating it as a complete holder is nice, except I didn't see a way to shorten the ext. in the holder, but I could have missed something as I only experimented real quick.

Yeah, how MC instantly adds a holder now is a pita unless you create it in the tool tab. I always wonder who vets new versions out and such because sometimes when things come out I'm like HTH did this get by QC. They way MC sends out new "options" knowing there's a problem or quirks would be like a programmer sending out code to a machine and telling the operator "Yeah it's gonna crash, so you'll have to find a way around it until I decide it's worth my time fixing it".

MC has come a long ways from ver. 5.5, but some things are like .

 

 

On 3/21/2022 at 1:41 PM, JB7280 said:

Right click, then "Edit Tool Assembly" in the Tool Manager.  Another one of those things that MC lets you do in one place, but not another (like where you attach the holder in the toolpath)

 

I still wish it didn't force you to add a tool # until you create an assembly.  But I always just number my tools 9999 until they're in use.  

Under "Edit tool assembly" we will be able to edit our extensions "stick out" without editing the length of the extension itself, correct?  It's a shame how many things suffer for the sake of putting a new version out every year....Cars, Phones, Software...etc.

[JB7280]

On 3/23/2022 at 1:07 PM, [email protected] said:

 

Under "Edit tool assembly" we will be able to edit our extensions "stick out" without editing the length of the extension itself, correct?  It's a shame how many things suffer for the sake of putting a new version out every year....Cars, Phones, Software...etc.

Yes, under edit tool assembly you can edit the "stick out" of each component individually.  What I dislike, is how thats the only place you can change it.  Not in the holder section of the toolpaths, nor in "edit projection"

 

I also notice it throws off our setup sheet a little.  For instance, I have an ingersoll "Top-On" facemill/shank combo.  So the shank is 5", and the cutter itself is 1.25" long.  So the stickout on our setup sheet reads 1.25, because technically the shank is a "holder".  I thought maybe I could start building the shanks as holders, and be able to pick and choose for different scenarios.  Might just be a way to modify the Active Reports files accordingly.