Stock Model selection

[G10X0Y0Z0]

Just transitioned to MCAM 2024. Did CNC software get rid of the drop down arrow to change the stock model on the fly.

[Aaron Eberhard]

Yeah, now it's "set as active stock" if you right click on it:

However, I never use it... The really useful thing is if your stock model is the first selected "toolpath" when you verify, it'll use that as the stock automagically.

[crazy^millman]

Probably one of my biggest complaints about the change in Verifying toolpaths was this.

[Jayson Kramer]

I am with you Aaron, this is how I do it and find I really like it. Ron I can see the complaints coming in if you don't know.

[Fred @ Slate Industries]

1st time ever since Mill 6. 1999

All three of us still using an older release  , Mill 2022 95 % of the time we use 2024 just to keep up with the times...

[crazy^millman]

On 12/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, Jayson Kramer said:

I am with you Aaron, this is how I do it and find I really like it. Ron I can see the complaints coming in if you don't know.

Not a matter of knowing. A matter of process flow and inconsistent process implementation with the drop downs. We have a GUI that went from somewhat cumbersome to just down right problematic. Go set a machine in 2024 and see if ti sticks. Go try change many other things that were finally working as they should to now 2 versions of a bad implementation of all of this. We will get 2-4 more releases before they might get it dialed in to then have someone else come along and say nope time to change things for the sake of change. Why haven't we still got holders implemented into the old toolpaths? Many other things that make people who use it daily to earn a living frustrated. It is a tool in the toolbox I use to earn a living and I will keep forcing it and pushing it against the grain to get the job done, but don't think these things go unnoticed by the end users who find them poorly done and put out here as world class when they are not that any more.

[Richard Thomas - Mastercam UK]

I've been embracing the approach of having Stock Models at the beginning of each new stage of machining; if you select the appropriate Stock Model as well the toolpaths you want to review, then Verify automatically starts with that Stock Model.  This might be helpful if the OP has been used to  making in-process Stock Models and is used to to verifying with them in earlier versions.

A down side of this is if you edit a earlier toolpath that subsequent Stock Models are referencing; it take a while to regenerate all of the models.

[MikronGuy]

13 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Not a matter of knowing. A matter of process flow and inconsistent process implementation with the drop downs. We have a GUI that went from somewhat cumbersome to just down right problematic. Go set a machine in 2024 and see if ti sticks. Go try change many other things that were finally working as they should to now 2 versions of a bad implementation of all of this. We will get 2-4 more releases before they might get it dialed in to then have someone else come along and say nope time to change things for the sake of change. Why haven't we still got holders implemented into the old toolpaths? Many other things that make people who use it daily to earn a living frustrated. It is a tool in the toolbox I use to earn a living and I will keep forcing it and pushing it against the grain to get the job done, but don't think these things go unnoticed by the end users who find them poorly done and put out here as world class when they are not that any more.

I feel the same way Ron does. Why fix something that is not broken. Why not give the users both options. Every time a new version of MasterCAM comes out we have to relearn the software. By the time we understand the way the new version works a new version comes out and the cycle starts over.  Its a different situation when you are testing the software instead of trying to earn a living off of it.

Even the roll outs don't address the new changes. all they do is recycle old tool paths on  tried and tested parts.

[Jake L]

9 minutes ago, MikronGuy said:

I feel the same way Ron does. Why fix something that is not broken. Why not give the users both options. Every time a new version of MasterCAM comes out we have to relearn the software. By the time we understand the way the new version works a new version comes out and the cycle starts over.  Its a different situation when you are testing the software instead of trying to earn a living off of it.

Even the roll outs don't address the new changes. all they do is recycle old tool paths on  tried and tested parts.

If I remember correctly, someone said CNC Software was trying to move away from MFC dialogs in the coming years. I forget the exact reasoning, but I believe it was something along the lines of better sustainability and expandability.

My point is, on the surface it seems like "change for the sake of change", but there seems to be a good reason for such a major change.

If anyone has any other information on the topic feel free to correct me, I'm going off something I remember hearing over a year ago, and I don't remember who said it.

 

[crazy^millman]

1 hour ago, Jake L said:

If I remember correctly, someone said CNC Software was trying to move away from MFC dialogs in the coming years. I forget the exact reasoning, but I believe it was something along the lines of better sustainability and expandability.

My point is, on the surface it seems like "change for the sake of change", but there seems to be a good reason for such a major change.

If anyone has any other information on the topic feel free to correct me, I'm going off something I remember hearing over a year ago, and I don't remember who said it.

 

What do the old school toolpaths look like? Have the changed? Have they been brought forward to the new GUI? When will they get the transition? These are the things that show me inconsistent implementation from a GUI standpoint. how about support Gauge Length across the board for holder in the software? We don't program machine tool from the edge of the tape on a holder, but go use them in a setup sheet or just look at them in any of the interfaces and what are the measurements based off of? I was personally onsite back in 2011 and had this very conversation with developers and it is still not supported correctly? Don't even get me started on probing.

[Jake L]

14 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

What do the old school toolpaths look like? Have the changed? Have they been brought forward to the new GUI? When will they get the transition? These are the things that show me inconsistent implementation from a GUI standpoint. how about support Gauge Length across the board for holder in the software? We don't program machine tool from the edge of the tape on a holder, but go use them in a setup sheet or just look at them in any of the interfaces and what are the measurements based off of? I was personally onsite back in 2011 and had this very conversation with developers and it is still not supported correctly? Don't even get me started on probing.

The gauge length thing I'll agree with you. Would be nice to be able to adjust that in any toolpath.

With that said, as far as updates to old school toolpaths, I imagine one of two things are at play.

1. It's possible new functions aren't backwards compatible with the old school toolpaths. If that's the case, the old school toolpaths would have to be rewritten to accommodate new functions.

2. They've got their sights set on something they deem bigger/better so they don't want to spend the time to update "little" things. Little in quotes there because software development takes ages. Something that seems "little" could take weeks or months of development and testing before release. Say it takes a month to implement gauge length adjustment to all toolpaths. I'd personally prefer that month of development time be spent on improving the deburr or unified toolpath, or even something completely new.

 

[byte]

1 hour ago, Jake L said:

If I remember correctly, someone said CNC Software was trying to move away from MFC dialogs in the coming years. I forget the exact reasoning, but I believe it was something along the lines of better sustainability and expandability.

My point is, on the surface it seems like "change for the sake of change", but there seems to be a good reason for such a major change.

If anyone has any other information on the topic feel free to correct me, I'm going off something I remember hearing over a year ago, and I don't remember who said it.

 

That sounds right MFC is being slowly replaced with wpf in Mastercam.

Wpf has a more modern look and has graphical ui elements instead of subwindows.

They were talking about it in the developer Event when they covered the new managed ui.

 

[crazy^millman]

1 hour ago, Jake L said:

The gauge length thing I'll agree with you. Would be nice to be able to adjust that in any toolpath.

With that said, as far as updates to old school toolpaths, I imagine one of two things are at play.

1. It's possible new functions aren't backwards compatible with the old school toolpaths. If that's the case, the old school toolpaths would have to be rewritten to accommodate new functions.

2. They've got their sights set on something they deem bigger/better so they don't want to spend the time to update "little" things. Little in quotes there because software development takes ages. Something that seems "little" could take weeks or months of development and testing before release. Say it takes a month to implement gauge length adjustment to all toolpaths. I'd personally prefer that month of development time be spent on improving the deburr or unified toolpath, or even something completely new.

 

People process and technology and as someone who has to provide complete programming package to customers where I never go onsite the process of documentation is extremely important to make that work. I have well over 2000 holders I have stripped the taper off over in the last 14 years. Say it only took me 5 minutes a holder that is 10,000 minutes or 167 hours. Take just 1000 end users having to do the same thing. That is 166,670 hours of end user time wasted not taking something that should be a fundamental core of the software and have it already implemented. Remember my two for one rule that is really 333,400 of hours wasted so if it did take 10 developers 160 hours of time each for a total time of 1600 hours to get gauge length working in the software that is a drop in bucket of time that end users would have saved. Real hard to win me over using that logic when the numbers speak for themself. I know enough about the development to know the tool group is complete;y different than the toolpath group when it comes to developers.

[Kyle F]

1 hour ago, crazy^millman said:

 I have well over 2000 holders I have stripped the taper off over in the last 14 years. Say it only took me 5 minutes a holder that is 10,000 minutes or 167 hours.

What exactly do you mean by "stripped the taper off"? 

[crazy^millman]

1 hour ago, Kyle F said:

What exactly do you mean by "stripped the taper off"? 

This is with taper on the holder and no allowance for gauge length in Total Length for any section of the software being leaving CAT, BT, CAPTO, HSK to other tapers on the holders. Now an setup person has to understand I want a 4" gauge length, but get documentation that shows 6.687 for a length. This will never create any confusion now will it?

Without the taper so Gauge Length is accounted for. Which process from a process standpoint support better communication and documentation for the Manufacturing process? More of the things I have asked for years that fall on deaf ears at CNC Software.

[Alien]

8 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

This is with taper on the holder and no allowance for gauge length in Total Length for any section of the software being leaving CAT, BT, CAPTO, HSK to other tapers on the holders. Now an setup person has to understand I want a 4" gauge length, but get documentation that shows 6.687 for a length. This will never create any confusion now will it?

Without the taper so Gauge Length is accounted for. Which process from a process standpoint support better communication and documentation for the Manufacturing process? More of the things I have asked for years that fall on deaf ears at CNC Software.

Maybe I understand something wrong, but all tool libraries in Mcam_2024 contain holders without a taper and the length is indicated accordingly.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Sincerely,

Michael.

8 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

This is with taper on the holder and no allowance for gauge length in Total Length for any section of the software being leaving CAT, BT, CAPTO, HSK to other tapers on the holders. Now an setup person has to understand I want a 4" gauge length, but get documentation that shows 6.687 for a length. This will never create any confusion now will it?

Without the taper so Gauge Length is accounted for. Which process from a process standpoint support better communication and documentation for the Manufacturing process? More of the things I have asked for years that fall on deaf ears at CNC Software.

Maybe I understand something wrong, but all tool libraries in Mcam_2024 contain holders without a taper and the length is indicated accordingly.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Sincerely,

Michael.

8 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

This is with taper on the holder and no allowance for gauge length in Total Length for any section of the software being leaving CAT, BT, CAPTO, HSK to other tapers on the holders. Now an setup person has to understand I want a 4" gauge length, but get documentation that shows 6.687 for a length. This will never create any confusion now will it?

Without the taper so Gauge Length is accounted for. Which process from a process standpoint support better communication and documentation for the Manufacturing process? More of the things I have asked for years that fall on deaf ears at CNC Software.

Maybe I understand something wrong, but all tool libraries in Mcam_2024 contain holders without a taper and the length is indicated accordingly.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Sincerely,

Michael.

[Alien]

8 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

This is with taper on the holder and no allowance for gauge length in Total Length for any section of the software being leaving CAT, BT, CAPTO, HSK to other tapers on the holders. Now an setup person has to understand I want a 4" gauge length, but get documentation that shows 6.687 for a length. This will never create any confusion now will it?

Without the taper so Gauge Length is accounted for. Which process from a process standpoint support better communication and documentation for the Manufacturing process? More of the things I have asked for years that fall on deaf ears at CNC Software.

Maybe I understand something wrong, but all tool libraries in Mcam_2024 contain holders without a taper and the length is indicated accordingly.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Sincerely,

Michael.

[Alien]

Sorry for duplicate post. This is Internet Explorer issue.

[Kyle F]

4 hours ago, Alien said:

Maybe I understand something wrong, but all tool libraries in Mcam_2024 contain holders without a taper and the length is indicated accordingly.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Sincerely,

Michael.

Ron is a contract programmer so he programs for many different shops/scenarios. he probably uses a lot of specific holders downloaded from the manufacturer's website and they come with the taper included. It's only an issue when he's adding "new" holders to the library. It shouldn't be that hard for mastercam to remove the taper from the gage length measurement in activereports... You'd think it would be an easy fix.

 

@crazy^millmanthat makes perfect sense. I only program for my own shop so when I add holders to the library I just get out my 6" calipers and create my holders from "scratch" so I've never dealt with the taper added to my setup sheets. It's rare we are adding holders to my library so I don't sweat it but I understand in your line of work how much of a pain that could be.

[JParis]

3 minutes ago, Kyle F said:

I only program for my own shop so when I add holders to the library I just get out my 6" calipers and create my holders from "scratch" so I've never dealt with the taper added to my setup sheets. It's rare we are adding holders to my library so I don't sweat it but I understand in your line of work how much of a pain that could be.

Doing it in this way though, you don't get the gage length....

For us, that is an important number along with the tool stickout, to feed to the setup guys...

[Kyle F]

39 minutes ago, JParis said:

Doing it in this way though, you don't get the gage length....

For us, that is an important number along with the tool stickout, to feed to the setup guys...

I could have the vocabulary wrong, but is this not correct?

technically the holder is listed as 2.5" and my setup sheet states it a little under that, but we only have 1 version of a stubby 3/8" hardholder so I don't think they would get confused. Hell, most the time it's like pulling teeth just to get an operator to *actually* read through the setup sheet LOL

 

[JParis]

3 minutes ago, Kyle F said:

I could have the vocabulary wrong, but is this not correct?

Visually, yes...but if you're just using calipers to get numbers, you're not getting an accurate gage length...

 

Now if your guys are then picking up each tool individually, then yeah, it's close enough.....but when you're relying on that value and the setup guys ability to set the tool properly as those values are already set...not good enough...

[Kyle F]

12 minutes ago, JParis said:

Visually, yes...but if you're just using calipers to get numbers, you're not getting an accurate gage length...

 

Now if your guys are then picking up each tool individually, then yeah, it's close enough.....but when you're relying on that value and the setup guys ability to set the tool properly as those values are already set...not good enough...

ohhhhh yes I should state that, my personal machine(s) are the only ones in the shop with a spindle probe + tool setter, all my operators are manually picking up offset lengths via handle jog each setup. The gage length on the sheet are just ref numbers they aren't inputting any of that in the control. I do believe I understand what you are saying now. 

In your situation, are operators taking the gage length off the setup sheet and then inputting that into the control for a tool setter to calculate the true offset? 

[JParis]

9 minutes ago, Kyle F said:

n your situation, are operators taking the gage length off the setup sheet and then inputting that into the control for a tool setter to calculate the true offset? 

Correct....

That allows all of what we check for to make sure it'll work and clear everything...

[Alien]

2 hours ago, Kyle F said:

Ron is a contract programmer so he programs for many different shops/scenarios. he probably uses a lot of specific holders downloaded from the manufacturer's website and they come with the taper included. It's only an issue when he's adding "new" holders to the library. It shouldn't be that hard for mastercam to remove the taper from the gage length measurement in activereports... You'd think it would be an easy fix.

 

@crazy^millmanthat makes perfect sense. I only program for my own shop so when I add holders to the library I just get out my 6" calipers and create my holders from "scratch" so I've never dealt with the taper added to my setup sheets. It's rare we are adding holders to my library so I don't sweat it but I understand in your line of work how much of a pain that could be.

Now it is clear. Thanks for clarifying.