This is how dangerously ___________ this software is.

[Del.]

Free fiss...

 

I wonder why I even get out of bed, I mean I may get killed pulling out of my driveway every morning.

 

Just sayin'

 

 

That's why some like Apple.

[neurosis]

Why do some of you even use x6 since it is buggy.

 

 

I know that I have been complaining allot, as have some others. X6 has some good qualities as well. Of course you are not going to hear about any of that.

 

I already have about 25 files that I am using stock models on. When it works, it is great! I use opti-rest on every one of those files as well.

 

I wish that you could break the operation dependency used to create the stock model (as an option) once it was created so that when you change something as simple as a lead in on a profile it would not require regenerating what is some times a very time consuming stock model.

 

If you already have the operations and tools picked and then try to change the control def it will not change what was already generated. If you do reselect as Gcode the tool register will set those numbers for you.

 

I will mess with it when I get the time. I am sure there is an easier way and less dangerous.

 

Wouldn't necessarily say it is a glitch in the software. The tools were pre-chosen under a different set of rules. Changing the rules after the fact would require some messing around. Although I was under the impression the control def was controlling the post output regardless of tool register settings for already used tools.

 

My impression was wrong apparently.

 

 

I understand this completely. AS I said in an earlier post. By adding the ability to use different diameter offsets for each individual operation, they made changing something this simple a night mare.

 

And it is DEFINITELY a glitch in the software when you have a Diameter offset specified in an operation and yet it neither warns you nor posts what you have asked it to. This should not be possible! Even if you take the time to go through each individual operation to make sure that your diameter offsets are correct it will not post correctly. That is just asking for trouble.

 

I appreciate anyone looking in to this that is willing to. This has been a pain in my xxxx for several years now. I think that I bring it up here about 1/10th of the times that I have to deal with it.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

That's why some like Apple Child Labor Law abusers....

 

Free fiss...

[K2csq7]

If I needed to do that I'd create a MIsc. Int to handle that. Make it do a check, if there's a value in the MIsc. Int., then use that value for the offset. If it's 0, then it's the same as the tool.

 

Excellent advice, thank you!

Just very sad that this software can't handle it. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOOL OFFSET #'S

 

I doesn't get much more fundamental than this for CAM packages..

 

I noticed this "bug" as soon as the initial (not re-release) release came out, very surprised it has take this long to hit everyone else.....

[neurosis]

 

Why do some of you even use x6 Windows since it is buggy.

 

Free fiss...

 

Just sayin'

 

 

I use Windows at work because I have to, same as Mastercam. I use FreeBSD at home.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I appreciate anyone looking in to this that is willing to.

 

Have you asked your reseller for a post option fo fix your issue?

 

There's a few different ways that are not particularly dificult to implement that would address tool length/diameter offsets in the post that will make things bullet proof.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Excellent advice, thank you!

Just very sad that this software can't handle it. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOOL OFFSET #'S

I for one am glad that MC has the ability for me to have so much control over my code at the post level. I like that I can over-ride the software.

 

When I had my first computer in the late 70's... one of my teachers told me somethign that has stuck with me ever since then; there are two types of comupter users; 1) those that ASK their computers to do stuff and 2) those that TELL there computers to do something. I've always been a TELLER. It has served me very well over the years.

[Joe788]

Thanks Gcode. Im not trying to discount your suggestion when I say this.

 

 

I am well aware of SEVERAL work arounds for this issue. They are ALL tedious and time consuming. Your suggestion is one of the many that I have used to get the file to post properly.

 

I have a feeling that by the time I get all of our part files changed over I will be an expert at this.

 

Post the program.

 

Edit

 

Find&Replace

 

Uncheck "match whole string"

 

Find: D3

 

Replace with: D

 

[neurosis]

Have you asked your reseller for a post option fo fix your issue?

 

There's a few different ways that are not particularly dificult to implement that would address tool length/diameter offsets in the post that will make things bullet proof.

 

I talked to our reseller a couple of times about this problem. They can only offer tedious work arounds but have never suggested a post fix nor have I asked them for one. I am considering post options but I do not see that as a very good alternative. I do not like the idea of our post fixing issues that the software is causing. I would rather have the file be correct so that if someone in the future needs to use a different post for some reason, they do not get bit in the A$$ unexpectedly.

[neurosis]

Post the program.

 

Edit

 

Find&Replace

 

Uncheck "match whole string"

 

Find: D3

 

Replace with: D

 

 

 

Very funny.

 

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about solutions then. Sorry I can't give you my solution.

[GoetzInd]

When I had my first computer in the late 70's... one of my teachers told me somethign that has stuck with me ever since then; there are two types of comupter users; 1) those that ASK their computers to do stuff and 2) those that TELL there computers to do something. I've always been a TELLER.

 

I agree 100%. I want mastercam to DO what I TELL it to do.

 

Mike

[mayday]

Keep shaking you pom poms James, your such a good cheer leader. We are all proud of you

[Mick]

I got the impression James was trying to help.

[neurosis]

I got the impression James was trying to help.

 

Yes, I did too. As always, I appreciate his suggestions whether he thinks that I do or not. I am actually still considering that as an option although I am apprehensive about it because it could potentially cause problems in the future for various reasons. Having a file that is not correct and relying on the post to fix its errors just seems irresponsible to me. Especially if someone else becomes responsible for my position in the future. They could end up with a real mess on their hands and be completely unaware of what is going on.

 

 

 

I do want to make one thing clear that I am not sure is. I did not open that operation and manually change the Diameter offset value. I changed the Machine Def to one that does not use type A memory (no +30 in the add to tool field), changed the tool H and D values, and the SOFTWARE modified all of the D values in the operations. I went through the operations afterwards to make sure that they had all been changed and they had. Then I posted the program and it posted the wrong values. It asked me during all of this if I wanted the operations updated and of course I answered yes.

[Greg Williams]

Add this to your post. If H and D do not match you will see the below error when posting. I normally have this anyway to catch any typos

 

smcamerror   : "ERROR H and D do not match"

   	if t$ <> tlngno$| t$ <> tloffno$, 
  		[
   	result = mprint(smcamerror, 1)
   	exitpost$
     	] 

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Not shakin' pom poms... Offering suggestIons to his LEGIT issue Wes.

[Aeroguy]

Free fiss...

 

I wonder why I even get out of bed, I mean I may get killed pulling out of my driveway every morning.

 

Just sayin'

 

Thats what I keep telling my boss, but he doesn't seem to be buying it.

[spade117]

Add this to your post. If H and D do not match you will see the below error when posting. I normally have this anyway to catch any typos

 

smcamerror   : "ERROR H and D do not match"

   	if t$ <> tlngno$| t$ <> tloffno$, 
  		[
   	result = mprint(smcamerror, 1)
   	exitpost$
     	] 

 

This seems like it would help those that always have the D and H vales the same. I might add this to my posts for the machines that allow this.

 

What about the machines where the H and D can't be the same?

 

 

I've seen this issue for awhile(way before X6), it is a pain, but I've known that you just have to click on the tool again to get it to update.

[Mr. Wizzard]

I think James is one of the most helpful people on this forum and he is genuinely trying to help with a "workaround" for now.

 

That being said, it seems like the same bugs keep getting ignored because of "workarounds". The post edit would work, but I, for one, am not a post expert and would not be able to make the fix. Now you have a file that can't be posted to another control. Mastercam files that NEED to be linked to specific "workarounds" to not crash a machine can be a VERY DANGEROUS situation. I love the software, personally. I can always get done what i need, but it is becoming less trustworthy to me. The longer you use it, the more comfortable you should be with it. I find myself never wanting to update to new releases, as they seem to require more time consuming tricks to work correctly. Why am i more afraid of the posted code with every new release? Like it or not, that's the reality.

 

Again, please don't take your frustrations with the software out on James. He is only trying to help and will be less likely to with snide remarks. We are all on the same team here, trying to be successful in our professions and make a living. All we can do is work with what we have now, and keep pressuring for bug fixes that are long overdue, and in some cases, becoming too risky to have around at all.

[shazam/TPP]

Neurosis, what if you set your control def>tool> to from tool, it'll then ask you to reload your mach def, then go to toolpaths> tool manager> select tool you want to change, change your h and d value, it will then ask you to apply to all ops using this tool, say yes and repost. i just tried it and it worked for me. hth

[neurosis]

Neurosis, what if you set your control def>tool> to from tool, it'll then ask you to reload your mach def, then go to toolpaths> tool manager> select tool you want to change, change your h and d value, it will then ask you to apply to all ops using this tool, say yes and repost. i just tried it and it worked for me. hth

 

 

Ive done that. If you read my posts you will see that is almost the exact steps that I took to produce the issue in the first place. But rather than changing an existing machine def, I loaded a new one with the "from tool" set which is doing the same thing that you are talking about. Some times it works and some times it does not. That is the problem You cant trust it.

[neurosis]

I think James is one of the most helpful people on this forum and he is genuinely trying to help with a "workaround" for now.

 

 

He can be quite condescending at times but I totally agree. More times than not when having done a search on the forum for some of my more complicated issues, James was some how involved in the solution.

 

 

That being said, it seems like the same bugs keep getting ignored because of "workarounds". The post edit would work, but I, for one, am not a post expert and would not be able to make the fix. Now you have a file that can't be posted to another control. Mastercam files that NEED to be linked to specific "workarounds" to not crash a machine can be a VERY DANGEROUS situation. I love the software, personally. I can always get done what i need, but it is becoming less trustworthy to me. The longer you use it, the more comfortable you should be with it. I find myself never wanting to update to new releases, as they seem to require more time consuming tricks to work correctly. Why am i more afraid of the posted code with every new release? Like it or not, that's the reality.

 

 

This is my feeling on the issue. I do not feel comfortable using the post to mask a problem that is hidden inside of a part file. That makes me feel like I am setting myself or someone else up for failure in the future. We send our files to customers at times so that they can use our programs to make parts for us. If I were ever to forget about something like this and send a file out and someone were to use our file and crash their machine.

 

I have not been confident with posted code since X4. I have had some major issues with transform operations, issues like the one that we are talking about here, the vertical arc lead issue that was recently fixed in optirough, and some others, that make me clinch every time we run a new program. There were some SERIOUS issues with transform operations in X5. There were problems in X5 optirough that caused part gouging (confirmed by CNC's QC department) and from what I have seen on the forum, some of that still exists. I have lost my confidence in this software to produce safe code. I am not saying that it "never" produces trustworthy code, but what percentage of the time that it produces "untrustworthy" code should be acceptable?

 

And thanks James, I really do appreciate your input.

[MIL-TFP-41]

This seems like it would help those that always have the D and H vales the same. I might add this to my posts for the machines that allow this.

 

What about the machines where the H and D can't be the same?

 

 

I've seen this issue for awhile(way before X6), it is a pain, but I've known that you just have to click on the tool again to get it to update.

smcamerror   : "ERROR H and D do not match" 
if t$ <> tlngno$| t$ <> ( tloffno$ + 30 ), #Note the plus 30
result = mprint(smcamerror, 1) 
exitpost$

That is basically what I have in my old posts

 

[edit]....fixxed my code comment

[Josh Kinney -Elite Engineering]

I have the same error but mine tells me what Operation. It doesn't help to if you have 400 Op's and you don't know which one is bad

 

I have a thread on here somewhere that outlines how it was implemented.

 

Josh-