Old bugs back again. Thanks alot CNC!

[neurosis]

Wow do I get some crazy xxxx going on in X6.

 

I have some deep pockets that I am trying to rough finish. The parts are heat treated so I am using opti-rest to bring them close to finish.

 

 

So I create a tool path for one of the pockets. I need to use two separate tools because the pockets are 4" deep so I copy the first path and change some parameters. When I get to the second tool I change the parameters to limit the min depth to start at the max of the last tool. For some reason the tool wants to ramp down from the 4" (top of the material) even though the min depth is set and there is clearly NO material to ramp in to. I decide to change the path to opti-area since at this depth there was no real need to use opti-rest anyway and regen. Things generate just fine and it looks like im off to the races..... NOT SO FAST.

 

 

So I decide that I can speed things up (I went conservative because Im using a 4" long 3/4" necked tool). I change the speeds and feeds, change my ramp angle a little and go to regen. It tells me that there is no valid machining area. But wait, did this xxxxer just generate a bit ago? So I scratch my head for a minute and decide that I will remove the cad model/stl since this is no longer a rest roughing routine, regen, and whooosh... Nice tool path. I look up, and the original path that I copied is now dirty and tells me that there is no stl/stock for the rest roughing routine. What in the xxxx is going on here?

 

This has happened several times over the last day and a half.

[gcode]

I've seen this before.

1. you make a rest rough toolpath using an STL file as a stock definition and get a sweet toolpath

2. copy the rest rough and use it for some thing else.. if you don't deslect the rest material settings.. your STL rest model is now a DRIVE model

and the resulting toolpath is not what you wanted..

3. now you delete the stock model to fix the copied operation and kill your first operation because the rest material definition is gone.

 

I've seen the yells about no valid machining zone too, usually after copying a high speed operation.

sometimes this is a bug, and your best option is to just do the operation over from scratch

( Rickster gets this one all the time and says restarting Mastercam will fix the copied op)

 

sometimes the "no valid machining zone" yell is actually true... because you forgot to turn off the rest material options

you think you're machining a pocket and mastercam thinks its machining a surface that looks like your rest rough model

 

the take away..

 

If you copy a rest roughing operation and change it into a non rest rough toolpath the rest material model becomes a drive model

and drives you crazy till you figure it out....

[Aeroguy]

This statement has always cracked me up. Of all of the other cad/cam systems that I use and have used, I have never heard anyone have to use the Mastercam cop-out phrase "Never has <enter system name here> not been able to make any part that I have programmed." I HAVE heard people defend BobCrap in this manner though.

 

Then again, Why would anyone have to defend their reasoning for using Cimatron.

 

This statement is 100% bang on.

If your CAM system works , and works well, then it doesn't need people defending it.

[Mr. Wizzard]

Just my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth. I'm no superstar and don't claim to be. I do feel pretty confident in what i do and my capabilities with the software. No, I'm not doing complex 5-axis die cavities with opti-rough, high-speed machining (cool-a$$ stuff). I make mostly easy money parts and am pretty bored most of the time. When i get something crazy with complex surfaces, it's a miracle.

 

I don't run into many of the bugs that most of you do, but i'm not using the particular toolpaths you do, in most cases, for the same applications. Over the years, i've run into some bugs; some replicated, some not, some persistent, some not. There are many factors that contribute to bugs, I understand that and understand it can be frustrating for CNC Software to track them down.

 

However, though i don't participate much in the "bug" topics, I do read through them quite a bit. I have learned that most of the complaints have been from the same users with the same issues, over and over again. From a user's standpoint, it is understandable to be frustrated to have the same problems, every release, while paying maintenance and being told every year that "It's on the list and will be fixed next release." Yes, new features and toolpath options are helpful, but not when the bugs keep compounding year after year. I never install a new release until the complaints wind down and most of the major headaches are taken care of for this reason.

 

It's been stated before and i don't understand why it has not been instituted. A logged bug site link on the forum, must have a valid license to view. It's not rocket science and it would, at least, give users some honest, viewable feedback as to where the bugs are on the list and if/when they'll be worked on.

 

There has to be some give and take on both sides, but when the software has the same bugs for the same people on the same applications release upon release, why would anyone at CNC Software expect them to not look for a more efficient alternative for what they are doing?

 

Just my useless opinion....

[BenK]

I just spent almost an hour (on a Sunday too) trying to help someone who told me he was running the most current version and upon re-creating his toolpath's on my system I didn't get any of the issues he was having.

 

 

I'm sorry my zip file was from the first release of X6 but I was still having the issues with the most current release of mastercam I just didn't have time to redo the zip file. Besides you told me you had to delete the toolpaths and reprogram them before it worked for you.

[Teh Bear without Brains kinda idiot]

Neurosis

This can happen if you have more than one contour on different z heights and use incremental values

[neurosis]

Have you also noticed that the optirest (not sure about other hss rest) ramps down from the previous depth of cut even if there is only .025 of material to ramp down in to? My depth are .75 step down and by the time it gets to the point that it will be ramping in to material, rather than starting at the material+added clearance, it starts .75 up and ramps all the way down to depth. What a waste of time.

 

I could have left that operation as a rest rough but since my part is 4" thick and this cut had .025 of material to ramp in to, it starts at the top of the 4" and ramps all the way down to depth. Even though I had my min/max depth set.

 

Im going to play with this later and try to create a file to reproduce this that I can send in to QC. This is a huge irritation.

 

 

 

 

I've seen this before.

1. you make a rest rough toolpath using an STL file as a stock definition and get a sweet toolpath

2. copy the rest rough and use it for some thing else.. if you don't deslect the rest material settings.. your STL rest model is now a DRIVE model

and the resulting toolpath is not what you wanted..

3. now you delete the stock model to fix the copied operation and kill your first operation because the rest material definition is gone.

 

I've seen the yells about no valid machining zone too, usually after copying a high speed operation.

sometimes this is a bug, and your best option is to just do the operation over from scratch

( Rickster gets this one all the time and says restarting Mastercam will fix the copied op)

 

sometimes the "no valid machining zone" yell is actually true... because you forgot to turn off the rest material options

you think you're machining a pocket and mastercam thinks its machining a surface that looks like your rest rough model

 

the take away..

 

If you copy a rest roughing operation and change it into a non rest rough toolpath the rest material model becomes a drive model

and drives you crazy till you figure it out....

[K2csq7]

Alright, I've had it with this stuff. I'm at a machine as the operator is getting ready to dry run a new program. He hits go and Mastercam just decides to throw a rouge M code at the top of the program.....

I hear the machine as it alarms out and look back to see WTH is going on. I had a feeling something was going to happen because of all the problems with X6, so I had my camera out.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50132990/Take_0014.mov

[#Rekd™]

Alright, I've had it with this stuff. I'm at a machine as the operator is getting ready to dry run a new program. He hits go and Mastercam just decides to throw a rouge M code at the top of the program.....

I hear the machine as it alarms out and look back to see WTH is going on. I had a feeling something was going to happen because of all the problems with X6, so I had my camera out.

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50132990/Take_0014.mov

 

[Cannon]

Wow do I get some crazy xxxx going on in X6.

 

I have some deep pockets that I am trying to rough finish. The parts are heat treated so I am using opti-rest to bring them close to finish.

 

 

So I create a tool path for one of the pockets. I need to use two separate tools because the pockets are 4" deep so I copy the first path and change some parameters. When I get to the second tool I change the parameters to limit the min depth to start at the max of the last tool. For some reason the tool wants to ramp down from the 4" (top of the material) even though the min depth is set and there is clearly NO material to ramp in to. I decide to change the path to opti-area since at this depth there was no real need to use opti-rest anyway and regen. Things generate just fine and it looks like im off to the races..... NOT SO FAST.

 

 

So I decide that I can speed things up (I went conservative because Im using a 4" long 3/4" necked tool). I change the speeds and feeds, change my ramp angle a little and go to regen. It tells me that there is no valid machining area. But wait, did this xxxxer just generate a bit ago? So I scratch my head for a minute and decide that I will remove the cad model/stl since this is no longer a rest roughing routine, regen, and whooosh... Nice tool path. I look up, and the original path that I copied is now dirty and tells me that there is no stl/stock for the rest roughing routine. What in the xxxx is going on here?

 

This has happened several times over the last day and a half.

 

Also if you have lots of material over the part, like a casting and use the cast as your stl stock, you still need to use depth limits otherwise the optirest path start at the depth where your part begings not seeing the excessive material.

[Slixmix]

Lmao! Nice video.

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

I have current maintenance and I'm still running X4. I gave X6 an honest try but the first X6 Wire job I programmed had major issues which were verified by QC.

 

Not really sure why we keep paying that maintenance bill. Definitely agree with the others who are frustrated here.

[peon]

Keith, I hope you submitted that file to qc along with some 3d glasses.

[Newbeeee™]

 

Not really sure why we keep paying that maintenance bill.

The trouble is, if you quit paying maintenance then when you want to upgrade in the future it costs 3xarms and 4xlegs to do it.

So it's catch 22. Pay a little more each year to 'protect your investment', or pay nothing and in a couple of years when you want to upgrade, pay nearly the full cost again.

[MotorCityMinion]

"So it's catch 22. Pay a little more each year to 'protect your investment', or pay nothing and in a couple of years when you want to upgrade, pay nearly the full cost again.'

 

Yes, but based on past performance and current conditions, at this rate, most of the better CAM packages will be light years ahead. If you would have switched at the release of X2, cost would have been covered by now. The real cost is training and lost time/productivity during the transition to a new package. Very hefty, especially with multiple seats and employees to train.

 

(OT, another dam glitch, can't edit that last sentence again)

 

From an outside perspective, that is to say some one who doesn't use MC but is viewing this thread, only a handful of people are stating that they are having issues with the current release. With over 7000 views in this thread so far, only a hand full have replied, most are probably lurking. My guess is that the majority of those who have upgraded are probably not power users and seem to be satisfied with the new goods. Whatever works I guess.

[gcode]

The real cost is training and lost time/productivity during the transition to a new package. Very hefty, especially with multiple seats and employees to train.

and post proccessors.. a HUGE investment

[neurosis]

and post proccessors.. a HUGE investment

 

 

X10000!

 

 

My company is lucky. I modified all of our posts on my own time from home. Of course I still had to test them at work. Luckily most of our post work is relatively simple.

 

If we had some 5X machinery here we would be SOL if we had to change. At this point it would be as easy as purchasing new software and learning it. Hopefully the posts will be as easy to learn.

[neurosis]

"So it's catch 22. Pay a little more each year to 'protect your investment', or pay nothing and in a couple of years when you want to upgrade, pay nearly the full cost again.'

 

Yes, but based on past performance and current conditions, at this rate, most of the better CAM packages will be light years ahead. If you would have switched at the release of X2, cost would have been covered by now. The real cost is training and lost time/productivity during the transition to a new package. Very hefty, especially with multiple seats and employees to train.

 

 

Mastercam is already playing catch up in some areas. We tested low end systems that had much better stock recognition and did not drag your system down to use. HSMWorks stock awareness was fantastic. If I create a few stock models in my part file and use them for various rest roughing operations my system becomes unstable to the point of constant crashing. Unacceptable.

 

Ive said it before and I will say it again, if we were able to find a system that had the best features of a few that we tested combined in to one, we would be long gone.

[gcode]

I've done all the lathe, 3X, 4X and 5X Fanuc posts here.

The Siemmens and Heidi 5X posts are beyond my talents so we bought them.

If we wanted to switch to a different system (we don't), the costs of the post would be

more than the software... not to mention the cost/risk of proving out unproven posts...

 

and the end of the day the biggest investment in a Cad/Cam software is

seat time and post proccessors...I've got 15 years invested in Mastercam.. can't get it back.. and can't do it over

 

If you're a one machine shop, the posts are no big deal but it would cost this place $100K just to buy

Catia or NX posts .. and then you'd still have to prove them out..

[MotorCityMinion]

Heh, I was being polite. So far so good with HSMWorks. It has its issues but the support is phenomenal, patches come frequently, and it progresses quickly. Kind of hard not to like it. Best of all, it's JB free (for now).

[neurosis]

Heh, I was being polite. So far so good with HSMWorks. It has its issues but the support is phenomenal, patches come frequently, and it progresses quickly. Kind of hard not to like it. Best of all, it's JB free (for now).

 

 

We would have considered it had it not been an addon for solidworks. Maybe its just an unwarranted phobia of ours to combine to systems...

 

I especially liked the fact that the post processors are java so if you care to take the time to learn it, the sky is the limit.

 

I also liked that you could use a solid as a stock model rather than having to deal with stl files.

 

 

Best of all, it's JB free (for now).

 

Dont jinks yourself.

[gcode]

I also liked that you could use a solid as a stock model

 

you can do that in X6 too. My current project has 2 of them

[neurosis]

you can do that in X6 too. My current project has 2 of them

 

 

You can use a solid for rest roughing without converting it to an stl or creating a stock model out of it? (which essentially just a stl isnt it?)

 

Ive used solids to create "stock models" but again, the more stock models that I create in a file, the more unstable my system becomes. Maybe the new pc will help.

[gcode]

merge the solid into your file

 

select it as a stock model

 

in your rest rough or optirough toolpath, select "one previous op" on the rest material page and pick the stock model from the operations list.

 

 

no stl files to keep track of I think the toolpaths proccess faster too, but have not done real speed tests

[neurosis]

merge the solid into your file

 

select it as a stock model

 

in your rest rough or optirough toolpath, select "one previous op" on the rest material page and pick the stock model from the operations list.

 

 

no stl files to keep track of I think the toolpaths proccess faster too, but have done real speed tests

 

 

I have a part that I am working on right now. There are two dash numbers, as shown and opposite parts. Each part has four rest roughing operations. Prior to X6 I had a series of .stl files saved and was using them for rest rough stock.

 

Once we got X6 I decided to use the tools that X6 provided and create stock models and then use those stock models for the rest roughing routines.

 

I couldnt even get through the first part. After creating a few stock models I couldnt even click on an operation in the operation manager without the system crashing with the infamous mastercam crash report popping up. I ended up having to trash all but one or two of the stock models and go back to using the stl files. The original stock for each of the two parts were created by using a solid since my material was not parallel to the active plane (long story that had to deal with part grain direction and the material not being in the top plane).

 

Now when you use a solid to create stock, it is not really using that solid as stock is it? Otherwise it wouldnt have to sit there and calculate to create it. I am assuming that it is generating an internal stl file that references the solid?

 

At any rate, I hope these issues get resolved. The stock model is much better than the options that we had in the past but ONLY if it works!