Lathe toolpath not symmetric with reversed chain

[Azoth]

Is this a bug? I've got it set up the same on both toolpaths except the back bore op has "Remaining Stock" enabled. The reverse chained toolpath (red arrow on right) doesn't complete the chain to the end. If I disabled stock recognition, it will complete the feature over the little radius (like the red arrow on the left), but then I have to fiddle with shorting my contour instead of taking advantage of the stock recognition feature.

Another missing feature, the Finish toolpath can't do stock recognition? So I rough left, rough right, finish left, then... Rough right and just set 0 remaining stock so I can use stock recognition.

Just got my first programming job so looks like I'll be putting some time in with mastercam after all. It's growing on me.

Attached emcam

backbore.emcam

[crazy^millman]

Check the clearance angle on the undercutting settings and how the tool is defined. All of these settings have an effect on turning operations. Leave stock recognition on for the 1st roughing so the 2nd roughing know what to look for. Without it you will get weird results since you have defeated the purpose of using stock in the 2nd operation. Then coming back with the roughing last is accomplishing what?

[Azoth]

I've set the clearance on the tool definition. That's not it.

Enabling stock recognition on the 1st roughing as zero effect on the current or subsequent toolpaths because all the stock is still there. It does have "Update Stock" enabled if that's what you meant.

I used Rough toolpath with set to leave 0 in x/z instead of Finish toolpath because the Rough toolpath allows me to use stock recognition "Use Remaining Stock". Otherwise the finish pass looks like this without stock recognition:

[crazy^millman]

1 minute ago, Azoth said:

I've set the clearance on the tool definition. That's not it.

Enabling stock recognition on the 1st roughing as zero effect on the current or subsequent toolpaths because all the stock is still there. It does have "Update Stock" enabled if that's what you meant.

I used Rough toolpath with set to leave 0 in x/z instead of Finish toolpath because the Rough toolpath allows me to use stock recognition "Use Remaining Stock". Otherwise the finish pass looks like this without stock recognition:

Thought you would come back telling me I had no idea what I was saying.

Here is what I came up with the correct settings. Sorry only 2024 installed on this new system so what I save will do you no good.

[Azoth]

Disabling stock recognition properly completes the toolpath, but has aircutting/recutting.

[Azoth]

12 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Thought you would come back telling me I had no idea what I was saying.

Here is what I came up with the correct settings. Sorry only 2024 installed on this new system so what I save will do you no good.

I mean, I don't see a toolpath. And if you want to be snarky, you haven't actually shown me you weren't wrong. You just posted a pic with the annotation "correct settings lol". I only told you I've checked your suggestions. No need to be offended. I can get that stock result too, but only if I disable stock recognition. But I don't know if this was an issue in the non emcam version. I modeled this piece at home to look into a different issue, and only now noticed it left more stock on the right side than the left even though the toolpath was a carbon copy. The file at work may output the same results as yours.

[Azoth]

Alright I got it working which required a setting that should not be required. It's a bug 100%.

That setting was not required on the original toolpath that this reverse toolpath was copied from. And the tweak to that setting to make it work is causing an additional behavior that I do NOT want on this toolpath.

I'll submit a bug report (if mastercam has those) if this bug is present on the licensed version at work. Thank you Azoth for the help lol give yourself a pat on the back.

[JParis]

Let's recount...

You have, by your own admission, your first programming job...

You say it's 100% a bug

and you provide an .ecam file that the vast majority of people cannot open..

I suspect it's not a bug but a usage & definition, setting issue of course though, can't tell because you provided a file that industrial users can't open.

Maybe next time before declaring a bug or something, you provide a file that others can easily open and query...that would go a long way to getting you the help you are asking for,,,,

Sorry if this all comes off as a bit harsh but at least help us help you.

[Azoth]

  

5 hours ago, JParis said:

Let's recount...

You have, by your own admission, your first programming job...

You say it's 100% a bug

and you provide an .ecam file that the vast majority of people cannot open..

I suspect it's not a bug but a usage & definition, setting issue of course though, can't tell because you provided a file that industrial users can't open.

Maybe next time before declaring a bug or something, you provide a file that others can easily open and query...that would go a long way to getting you the help you are asking for,,,,

Sorry if this all comes off as a bit harsh but at least help us help you.

 

By my own admission? Like that's something I should be ashamed of and try to hide? What is it with the fragile egos here? And I thought that cliche was about the machinists not the programmers.

Pro life tip: If you don't know something, it's okay to admit it. If you're wrong about something, there's no need to feel shame and lash out. That immature personality trait is how we get so many hard headed trump cultists in the U.S.

I didn't post details on the bug because the case was closed and I'm not sure it effects the industrial version... However, thin shell up there apparently had to change something in their industrial version, so perhaps the bug is present. Not showing the toolpath or saying which setting was change is a total cop out. I suspect they didn't really have a solution and tried save face and run away. Lit me reiterate, there's no need to "save face" just because you don't know something. That's not a healthy mind set.

The bug:

Overlap enabled and set to Zero allows the tool to follow the chain back up to the previous pass. It worked on the left side as intended. On the right side, it worked on every pass except the 1st pass where you see the remaining nub of stock. The cutoff was .00004" to get the proper result. The behavior I don't want is for the toolpath to overlap more than 0; I want it to meet the previous tool position in X and not go past. I'm sure the post processor will round down so the nc output would still be what I want simply because there is less precision, but theoretically it's overlapping .00004 on every pass and it should be 0. That is a software error. You can tell me I'm wrong. I don't take offense, but you have to be able to back it up. I do take some issue to you being offended to my inoffensive matter-of-fact response.

Sorry if this all comes off as a bit harsh but I'm not going to grovel and tip-toe around someone just because they're sensitive old gatekeepers that think they're hot xxxx who had to work so much harder than everyone else so they hoard industry secrets for a sense of superiority when they know how to do something that requires a workaround instead of petitioning mastercam to fix the issue because they're dug in and by using convoluted software they receive job security. I freely share everything I learn; that's probably why they try to keep me around. Sadly corporate policy to "wear gloves at all times once you step foot in the building" was a dealbreaker. They just installed touch screens everywhere. They just installed fingerprint scanners. What the hell were they thinking. And they just ripped a guy's thumb off because they told him, a lathe operator, to put on gloves. Then they fired him. (tangent rant, my bad.)

Idk, maybe the crazy mill guy is touchy because I said programming was easy that one time a long time ago? I mean, I just started a programming job and the day flies. It's like playing a video game all a day. Come on. The only difficulty is in Mastercam's under-documentation and inconsistent work flow stemming from haphazard implementation of new features. It's definitely more difficult being the machinist having to correct programs at the machine because the programmer can't be bothered to get the geometry correct and has an ego that prevents them from working with the machinist and uses excuses like "that's how we've always done it" or "how did Q.C. even found out about this? Because you told them huh you little jackass."... How about you stop shipping bad parts have you thought of that? (oh tangent rant again my bad)

Back on topic. If I'm wrong, prove it. And PSA: grow some skin.

[JParis]

 

And still no testable file

[gcode]

Azoth

May I respectfully suggest that when you get to work tomorrow, you upload an industrial

copy of this toolpath. Until you have done that, there is no way to know if this is a bug.

If it's a bug it can be submitted to QC.

 

 

[Mick]

7 hours ago, JParis said:

 

And still no testable file

"It's like playing a video game all a day"

Enough said....

[Greg Williams]

The file looks okay here, where is your operation arrow?

[gcode]

19 hours ago, Azoth said:

I didn't post details on the bug because the case was closed and I'm not sure it effects the industrial version...

I don't know what version they started doing this, but with MC2024 the industrial and educational version are the same download.

Whether it runs as an industrial seat or educational is controlled by the license you are using... so if you are seeing a bug  in educational,

it should be there in the industrial version.

 

[crazy^millman]

On 4/6/2024 at 4:55 PM, Azoth said:

I mean, I don't see a toolpath. And if you want to be snarky, you haven't actually shown me you weren't wrong. You just posted a pic with the annotation "correct settings lol". I only told you I've checked your suggestions. No need to be offended. I can get that stock result too, but only if I disable stock recognition. But I don't know if this was an issue in the non emcam version. I modeled this piece at home to look into a different issue, and only now noticed it left more stock on the right side than the left even though the toolpath was a carbon copy. The file at work may output the same results as yours.

Sorry been on the road for the last 6 weeks and still on the road the next 4 weeks and was killing a little bit of time on my 16 hours home between trips. Was trying to give you more feedback, but out of space to post up more screen shots than what I did. It was education file and as such only a few people could even open it. Like I said I don't have an older version of Mastercam on this computer so what good would have it done to post it up anyway? qc (at) mastercam (dot) com is where you are more than welcome to report the issue you have found. You came in blaming the software and its lacking and I wanted to help point you in the direction to know it was possible. Free time is funny when people try to be helpful to others thinking someone else owes them something. I helped on my own dime taking away from other things I could be doing and sorry I did it in a hurry taking care of 5 other things at the same time. 

Your attitude is what I suspected it was going to be when reading that first posting and like the last 21 years on this forum you have followed it to a script. Come in blaming Mastercam for its shortcoming. Get upset when someone shows you that yes it can do what was asked and when others point out that you are being an a$$hole then deflect it on to them verse being a person and admitting you came in with a axe to grind verses looking for real assistance. Was is possible? Yes it was. Was it shared in a way others can help with? No it was not, but you got answers anyway, Now your upset that yes the software can do what you want just not the way you feel it should do it and as such it is crap software because you don't like the way it does it when it can do exactly what you originally asked for was can it do it. That about sum it up? 

Quote

Is this a bug? I've got it set up the same on both toolpaths except the back bore op has "Remaining Stock" enabled. The reverse chained toolpath (red arrow on right) doesn't complete the chain to the end. If I disabled stock recognition, it will complete the feature over the little radius (like the red arrow on the left), but then I have to fiddle with shorting my contour instead of taking advantage of the stock recognition feature.

Is this a bug? How would any us know if it is a bug or not? We can theorize all day long and call things we find bugs. I do the same thing all the time calling things in Mastercam bugs, but when it could get the job done with some settings that needed to be changed does it make a bug or a user preference?

[Azoth]

6 hours ago, crazy^millman said:

Your attitude is what I suspected it was going to be when reading that first posting and like the last 21 years on this forum you have followed it to a script. Come in blaming Mastercam for its shortcoming. Get upset when someone shows you that yes it can do what was asked and when others point out that you are being an a$$hole then deflect it on to them verse being a person and admitting you came in with a axe to grind verses looking for real assistance. Was is possible? Yes it was. Was it shared in a way others can help with? No it was not, but you got answers anyway, Now your upset that yes the software can do what you want just not the way you feel it should do it and as such it is crap software because you don't like the way it does it when it can do exactly what you originally asked for was can it do it. That about sum it up?

When did that ever happen?

ITT

Me: "Any ideas on this?"

You: "Maybe this."

Me: "I've already checked that"

You: ". How dare you."

Looks like you've got quite the good ole boys club here. It's gross. Always projection with you people.

[crazy^millman]

13 minutes ago, Azoth said:

When did that ever happen?

ITT

Me: "Any ideas on this?"

You: "Maybe this."

Me: "I've already checked that"

You: ". How dare you." <--- How dare you?  No you told me it was not possible. I showed you it was possible. Again sorry you cannot grasp that I have never had training in Mastercam either. All Self Taught so if this dumb as a box of rocks person (referring to myself not you so you will not get your feelings hurt) can figure it out then I would think an person like yourself would see if a crazy person can do then you can figure it out, but guess that is wrong to think so. Again apologize I didn't take the time to install and older version of Mastercam on my computer to give you the file in whatever version that was so you could see exactly what I was seeing. How dare I now stop my life to help you. Projection of what may I ask? I pay just like the rest of the business owners do. Are you paying for Mastercam out of your pocket or does the company you work for pay it? I pay for it out of my pocket, How about you?

Looks like you've got quite the good ole boys club here. It's gross. Always projection with you people. You people that try to offer help for free? I will tell you people like you really make me wonder why I even come to this forum any more. Between the illegal users and a$$hats like yourself why keep even trying?

 

[Azoth]

1 hour ago, crazy^millman said:

 

No you told me it was not possible. I literally never said it was not possible. You are a xxxxing liar sir.

However, that "Thought you would come back telling me I had no idea what I was saying" is clearly you having a xxxx attitude in response to my providing more info hence the interpretation "I'm mr crazy mill guy How dare you not worship me". Dude, chill. I merely said that my tool clearance angle was properly defined, damn.

Projection of what may I ask? Your xxxxty attitude is the projection. All bets are off after that. Be professional, get professional.

"All Self Taught so if this dumb as a box of rocks person" Again, just because you didn't have the solution, that doesn't mean you're stupid. That's your fragile ego talking. Although... projection has nothing to do with payment for software. "I pay for it out of my pocket, How about you? " Like, what? I suppose the fragile ego does have to stem from somewhere

Seriously it goes around a lot here. I remember ages ago I said I don't plan to take a job that deploys mastercam if I have to google mastercam workflow on the clock and people got mad that I wanted to learn it first? Because no one except them could possibly handle programming?

"Your attitude is what I suspected it was going to be " No, attitudes started at post #4. That's your attitude you're seeing buddy. Be real.

 

13 hours ago, Greg Williams said:

The file looks okay here, where is your operation arrow?

It wasn't the operation arrow (don't get mad I'm just saying that's not it lol you're seeing stock still there because I have the overlap settings dialog open). (oohhh, really don't get mad, but your operation arrow is in the wrong spot. The issue is with the rough pass using stock recognition not the finish pass don't hit me.). I even reversed the order of operations so the other side gets to use "Use remaining stock" and the nub appeared on the left side instead. It's something to do with stock recognition specifically. Or maybe overlap. And the issue is not present at work.

 

23 hours ago, Mick said:

"It's like playing a video game all a day"

Enough said....

Uhh, yeah? Sitting on your xxxx all day playing with math and physics in a virtual environment? Easiest job ever. Not to belittle the profession, but no one here is better than a janitor or fast food worker. You guys should appreciate how privileged you are. It's like playing a video game all day instead of working hard jobs to make ends meet with no prospect of upward mobility because of circumstances out of your control.

On 4/7/2024 at 1:50 PM, gcode said:

Azoth

May I respectfully suggest that when you get to work tomorrow, you upload an industrial

copy of this toolpath. Until you have done that, there is no way to know if this is a bug.

If it's a bug it can be submitted to QC.

 

If I discover a bug at work, I will be sure to bring it to the attention of adults. emastercam is the merely top result on google so I made some erroneous assumptions. I should direct future business through proper channels.

[gcode]

1 hour ago, Azoth said:

If I discover a bug at work, I will be sure to bring it to the attention of adults

Send it to [email protected]

 

1 hour ago, Azoth said:

emastercam is the merely top result on google

there is a reason for that.

1 hour ago, Azoth said:

I should direct future business through proper channels.

You can find that here

You can browse most of it without an account.

If you want to access the forum, you'll need to create an account from a PC with access to a legitimate Mastercam license.

and at this point I am bringing this thread to it's well deserved end.