Mastercam 2024 and toolpath organization

[rgrin]

   Currently I am running 2022 but today is the day I make the switch to 2024.  I am in the process of overhauling the main part family that my machine runs and with that I am trying to nail down how I want my programs to look.  I started programming full time 3 years ago and I have grown and learned a lot since then.  But it is time for me to clean up my act and I would like your guy's opinions on how files should look.  

   In 2022, I run my parts thru 1 machine group, then have a Base toolpath group for each Op/ Part setup. With in that tool path group, I break up into sub groups depending on what I am doing. (roughing, finishing, drilling)  I utilize viewsheets to allow me to flip quickly thru each setup.  I like doing it this way since it helps me make changes if I need to.  It also means that I have only 1 tool manager library for an entire part which makes global changes to tools a lot easier.

   With the changes to machine group setup in 2024, it allows you to assign part model, stock model, and fixture models. At face value, I like that change.  It jives well with how I structure my program and so far has eliminated my simulator errors when assigning stock models and fixtures.  However, in order to fully utilize this you basically would want to have a new machine group for every new setup in order to assign the correct stock model and fixturing for each setup.  The major drawback to this is that now you will have multiple independent tool libraries for every machine group and this will make managing tools more cumbersome between each program.

   How are you folks handling this? Browsing previous posts about this subject, it seems quite a few are basically using the same method I am currently in 2022.  Are any of you utilizing the new machine groups fully yet? Or is it another implementation that ain't quite there yet?

[Chally72]

Right now, the new Machine Group Setup flow is, as you pointed out, structured around one setup per machine group. I typically work with one machine group and setup flips in toolpath groups within it. Because of that, I would continue using the pre-2023 workflow for those situations.

Today in the new Machine Group Setup flow, there's not much incentive to switch your flow if you're a power user with complex product, because all of these changes so far are aimed at easing and guiding single-setup experience, rather than the super-efficient flow we've all fallen into. In the future, this Machine Group Setup will expand in two ways:

-Give reasons/benefits for you to set up master model, workholding and multiple stock. IE, make toolpaths look at these and make better decisions upfront so you have to spend less time repeatedly telling each toolpath the same thing.

-Expand the capabilities available to you in a single Machine Group. Think, handling of tombstones, stock flips, etc, to move that power-user flow into the new Machine Group experience.

[Kyle F]

I myself tried to implement the various toolpath groups for rough/finish/holemaking/deburr but as I delved deeper into *slightly* more complex 5axis parts it would put me in a weird situation where sometimes I have to come back in and rough/finish various features before roughing/finishing other features. So now it's back to just all being jumbled together lol 

[rgrin]

The shop I work at, every machinist is their own programmer. The vast majority have 1 program per file and separate the setup flips into their own file.  They also don't use toolpath groups. You can find programs with 100+ operations and it can be a pain to go thru them if you need to make a change.  I'm fortunate that I have essentially been separated from the rest of the company when I was put in charge of our pallet changer.  While I see the argument that I should have continued doing what everyone else did, I just disagreed with it since IMO for the work I do now that using groups, viewsheets, and organized levels really helps me make efficient programs.

I just need to settle in on exactly what I want to do now and stick with it...

[Kyle F]

Just now, rgrin said:

I just need to settle in on exactly what I want to do now and stick with it...

I think this is the one true answer! Just gotta do what works for you

but it sounds like you have a much nicer way of going about it. I literally can't imagine having multiple ops in 1 file without multiple toolpath groups.

The way I "came up", we had part1.mcam for op1 and part1a.mcam for op2 and so on and so forth... so it was a bit of a pain hopping between programs to make changes but at least things were separated toolpath-wise haha.

[Aaron Eberhard]

From the screenshots you posted, great job on getting organized!  You're way ahead of most files that I see!  

There's some things to like in 2023/4 machine setup, but a LOT to not like.   I'm guessing in a few more years it'll be quite useful, but right now it's cumbersome.   The fixtures in particular is painful because they're of literally no use if you ever do more than one op in the file.    I teach an Intro to Mastercam class, and trying to explain multiple setups now is horrible.  None of them understand it because there's no reason!  It used to be simple, "just jump into config and change the "fixtures" checkbox."  Now (especially on the school computers), it's a 5 minute process by the time the whole tab system loads and unloads, then you add/remove/etc. your new fixtures after deleting the old one.. Ugh.

One thing that is nice in the newer versions, though, is if you select a stock model as the first toolpath in your selection for Verify, it will automagically use that stock model as the stock, not the original one.  Nice improvement there!

Rant over, as far as toolpath organization, I generally prefer to group by tool, with as descriptive of a note as possible, but that gives me the flexibilty to make more groups down the line if I have to reuse that tool for something:

Note the "generally" above, though, sometimes it makes more sense to group by feature or whatever else is logical.    I just want to know that in a year when I need to revisit this file, I can find what I need in less than 2 or 3 minutes.    The important thing to establishing any form of "Structure" here is to recognize that the real world is messy, and sometimes adjustments need made.  You're a professional, trust yourself to know when to stay inside the lines and when to color outside of them

[TFarrell9]

You have things setup pretty much how I do, though I don't generally make a sub-groups unless I'm running a part in "stages" (IE: sliding a part that's too big or moving clamps around). I keep all operations for a single machine within a single machine group because of tooling, as you said you also do.

The way fixtures are setup in the simulator options now is a bit annoying to me, since I have to select/delete the fixture setup every time for each operation, rather than being able to toggle it on or off after it's been loaded into the fixture window (unless there is a way to do that and I haven't figured it out yet). 

I really like how you don't have to select stock models as a simulator option anymore though. I have a stock model at the top of each operation (like you have pictured) and you can just select the entire operation group and it will use the stock model as the stock for that verification (same thing for mid-op stock models of course). If they could integrate something like that for fixturing, that would be fantastic. 

[Leon82]

I usually only combine two ops in one group if I have to share a lot of tools and am flipping between one side then the other with each part.