MC2024 - Using Stock Model in Verify

[JB7280]

With the new verify options in MC2024, its says you can use a stock model, and it will create a mesh and use that for your stock for simulation.  I used to often use a stock model, so I didn't have to run through all of the toolpaths in verify.  It doesn't seem to be working though.  I choose the stock model, but there's still no entities in my stock panel.  

 

What am I doing wrong?

[SuperHoneyBadger]

1 - Make a Stock Model

2 - Put it at the top of the Toolpath Group, it HAS to be the first item in the list you have selected for Verify (so top of the group is easiest).

3 - Verify the group, and any toolpath after it, and MC will use that model as your stock.

 

This way you only need your 'initial' settings in the Stock Setup menu proper, and you can daisy chain your stock models for multiple ops by using the previous OP results as stock. I like the way it works now, faster workflow for checking individual OPS, or finish routines.

 

[JB7280]

37 minutes ago, SuperHoneyBadger said:

1 - Make a Stock Model

2 - Put it at the top of the Toolpath Group, it HAS to be the first item in the list you have selected for Verify (so top of the group is easiest).

3 - Verify the group, and any toolpath after it, and MC will use that model as your stock.

 

This way you only need your 'initial' settings in the Stock Setup menu proper, and you can daisy chain your stock models for multiple ops by using the previous OP results as stock. I like the way it works now, faster workflow for checking individual OPS, or finish routines.

 

Oh wow, that's really nice.  Thank you!!

 

That's new to 2024?  Or just a trick I've been missing out on?

[AHarrison1]

4 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

That's new to 2024?  Or just a trick I've been missing out on?

New to 2024

[JB7280]

4 minutes ago, AHarrison1 said:

New to 2024

Nice, REALLY like that feature.  

[Johnward Holmeson]

22 minutes ago, AHarrison1 said:

New to 2024

You sure?  I swear I used this same method in 2023 as well.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Just a few things to keep in mind that I can share from using this method often:

Sometimes it will just use your initial stock, and ignore your stock model.

Make sure your Stock Display is off, try to regen and view your stock model with ALT+T, and if that doesn't work, save and restart MC (classic). It has happened less often with each update, I will say, but still occurs. I find it happens more when first creating the stock model, not when you have a setup in place already and are coming back to it. Still not sure what exact conditions will stop Verify from using your stock model, but those steps have always had everything back in order.

All in all, I applaud this feature, it's one of the best new tools I use daily in 2024.

[AHarrison1]

18 minutes ago, Johnward Holmeson said:

You sure?  I swear I used this same method in 2023 as well.

I am fairly certain of that.

Someone can test this in 2023 if they want to verify.

[Chally72]

Yes, new to 2024! One of my favorite new features and instantly something I can't live without.

[AHarrison1]

4 minutes ago, Chally72 said:

Yes, new to 2024! One of my favorite new features and instantly something I can't live without.

AAHH... nothing like the sound of the 'proverbial horse's mouth'...

[crazy^millman]

Since I have always used a Stock model as my first operation in Mill i didn't notcie a difference when doing this in 2024. Guess it is about time the software caught up to what I was already doing.

[JB7280]

7 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Since I have always used a Stock model as my first operation in Mill i didn't notcie a difference when doing this in 2024. Guess it is about time the software caught up to what I was already doing.

They have cameras, watching your workflow.  Next year I hear they're changing the name to RonCam 2025.  Still no subgroups or folders in levels though.  

[Chally72]

1 hour ago, crazy^millman said:

Since I have always used a Stock model as my first operation in Mill i didn't notcie a difference when doing this in 2024. Guess it is about time the software caught up to what I was already doing.

This is the flow I always taught as well. 

[JB7280]

1 hour ago, Chally72 said:

This is the flow I always taught as well. 

I've always done it this way as well.   Not having to change sim options is a huge plus though.

[Johnward Holmeson]

19 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Since I have always used a Stock model as my first operation in Mill i didn't notcie a difference when doing this in 2024. Guess it is about time the software caught up to what I was already doing.

ah maybe this is what I was experiencing as I did the same.

[cruzila]

I naturally gravitated to this flow as well.

[crazy^millman]

20 hours ago, cruzila said:

I naturally gravitated to this flow as well.

That is what is not good about the new Machine Group process. I get the dumbing down of the software to meet to needs to everyone that use it, but for experiences users this new must must must direction sucks. I can use the like I did, but seems to be more trouble that it is worth. Now I have 4-12 different machine groups in a file unless doing turning then because that like always has not got any love or attention is not working in 2024. I send in a bug report and get crickets. Past the point of even trying anymore to report issues. I will just keep my head down do what I do to feed my family and see what direction the future takes me.

[JB7280]

On 1/26/2024 at 6:57 AM, crazy^millman said:

That is what is not good about the new Machine Group process. I get the dumbing down of the software to meet to needs to everyone that use it, but for experiences users this new must must must direction sucks. I can use the like I did, but seems to be more trouble that it is worth. Now I have 4-12 different machine groups in a file unless doing turning then because that like always has not got any love or attention is not working in 2024. I send in a bug report and get crickets. Past the point of even trying anymore to report issues. I will just keep my head down do what I do to feed my family and see what direction the future takes me.

Ron, did you previously not use multiple Machine Groups?  I ask because, that's how I've always done it.  I've always made a new machine group for each "setup", or operation.  Just curious what you use to separate operations?  Do you just make separate toolpath groups?

[Aaron Eberhard]

51 minutes ago, JB7280 said:

Ron, did you previously not use multiple Machine Groups?  I ask because, that's how I've always done it.  I've always made a new machine group for each "setup", or operation.  Just curious what you use to separate operations?  Do you just make separate toolpath groups?

Don't want to speak for Ron, but pretty much the only time I ever made a new machine group was when I had to switch machines. 

Now that the workflow has... er... improved... 

[crazy^millman]

5 hours ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

Don't want to speak for Ron, but pretty much the only time I ever made a new machine group was when I had to switch machines. 

Now that the workflow has... er... improved... 

Exactly how I did it. Now we are forced into that direction.

[JB7280]

On 1/29/2024 at 10:05 AM, Aaron Eberhard said:

Don't want to speak for Ron, but pretty much the only time I ever made a new machine group was when I had to switch machines. 

Now that the workflow has... er... improved... 

Interesting, thats how I've always done it.  I think the main reason is because the setup sheet we developed uses the "Comments" section for setup notes.  So creating a new machine group lets you make a new set of comments for each op.  

 

Is there an advantage/disadvantage for doing it "your" way vs "my" way?  I'm always open to learning a better way.  

[crazy^millman]

2 hours ago, JB7280 said:

Is there an advantage/disadvantage for doing it "your" way vs "my" way?  I'm always open to learning a better way.  

When i teach Mastercam one of the first things I tell people is my way is what I have come up with for programming parts. Take what I teach you and use what is helpful to you. Canned training is great to get familiar with the software, but when I teach I use customer parts. I want to use real world examples to teach. As I teach I dump a lot of information into the training. I would rather lay the ground work for what someone can accomplish than limit them to what some book teaches. What are the traps and other things to be thinking about? Why use this method over that method? What are tricks to be faster more efficient when programming? Interact and engage the students and you see the process gain a life of its own.

I use no Ribbons and spread my managers over several screens. For me increases my programming sped by 20-40%. Having the recent functions parked on right side as a toolbar and list as many as the selection. My RMB has things to make life easier with Auto Cursor and Lock Auto Cursor on it. I have the stolen screen space set to 100% since it was stolen from us I want to know it was stolen from us not hide it and then accidentally click on it and loose my chain of thought as I am programming parts. The attributes being tied to the RMB or floating in my opinion was a poor decision from a GUI standpoint. Might be easier from a product development standpoint, but from the end user stand point I hate it.

[#Rekd™]

One thing I can't stand is that "glow highlighting"...turn that crap off for good!!!!!

[Aaron Eberhard]

2 hours ago, JB7280 said:

Interesting, thats how I've always done it.  I think the main reason is because the setup sheet we developed uses the "Comments" section for setup notes.  So creating a new machine group lets you make a new set of comments for each op.  

 

Is there an advantage/disadvantage for doing it "your" way vs "my" way?  I'm always open to learning a better way.  

I don't want to say "better" or "worse" here, but I find keeping everything on one machine if possible is a bit easier to manage.  They share a common tool library, edit common parameters, etc. etc.   The other thing I find is that unless the setup is really simple, it's more difficult to express how to set it up exactly only using the comments.

I prefer to leverage the crap out of Viewsheets, levels, etc. so when you click on a viewsheet, you get the information presented exactly how I want it.  I take a screenshot of that and attach it to each setup sheet. 

For example, I have a an assembly of 4 parts I just programmed for a customer, each part has a minimum of 2 operations.  The parts are all aluminum that get riveted together.   The customer didn't want me to spend time specifying the specific tools because they have a lot of stock(i.e., program for a generic .5 3FL .030R Endmill, not a Helical 82xxx, they'll figure out exactly which endmill fits my specification).  For the most part, each of these parts is going to share common tools, all happening on the same machine.   Since I knew the customer was going to have to edit the tools to fit what they had on hand, I didn't want them to have to edit the same tool in 12 separate machine groups. 

So to do that, I set up a view sheet with each part's op.  I put a Note on the level with that fixture, and attached it.   Here's one of the simple brackets, this was at the end of the setup sheet (the top specifies what stock size to use, etc):

 

 

On the other hand, I did have a customer that wanted each Op as a separate file...

[crazy^millman]

9 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

I don't want to say "better" or "worse" here, but I find keeping everything on one machine if possible is a bit easier to manage.  They share a common tool library, edit common parameters, etc. etc.   The other thing I find is that unless the setup is really simple, it's more difficult to express how to set it up exactly only using the comments.

I prefer to leverage the crap out of Viewsheets, levels, etc. so when you click on a viewsheet, you get the information presented exactly how I want it.  I take a screenshot of that and attach it to each setup sheet. 

For example, I have a an assembly of 4 parts I just programmed for a customer, each part has a minimum of 2 operations.  The parts are all aluminum that get riveted together.   The customer didn't want me to spend time specifying the specific tools because they have a lot of stock(i.e., program for a generic .5 3FL .030R Endmill, not a Helical 82xxx, they'll figure out exactly which endmill fits my specification).  For the most part, each of these parts is going to share common tools, all happening on the same machine.   Since I knew the customer was going to have to edit the tools to fit what they had on hand, I didn't want them to have to edit the same tool in 12 separate machine groups. 

So to do that, I set up a view sheet with each part's op.  I put a Note on the level with that fixture, and attached it.   Here's one of the simple brackets, this was at the end of the setup sheet (the top specifies what stock size to use, etc):

Well said and almost my exact thoughts.

10 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

On the other hand, I did have a customer that wanted each Op as a separate file...

Drives me up one wall and down the other, but yes sir right away sir. How high did you want me to jump sir? How much more of the floor you need me to mop? That toilet needed cleaning right on it sir mean while the ship is sinking.