Point of information; Most programmers misapply the term "Dynamic Offset". On a FANUC Control "Rotary Table Dynamic Fixture Offset" (RTDFO) is a very specific function with a specific G-Code (G54.2) to activate it, AND it must be set up a certain way in order to function correctly. There are two typical scenarios that can work correctly; 1) Common Offset Contains the center of rotation values, and small shifts are applied to the Work Offset in case needed, then the distance from center of rotation to the part origin point goes into the Dynamic Fixture Offset page. 2) The Work Offset Contains the Center of Rotation values and the Common Work Offset contains small shifts, then the distance from center of rotation to the part origin point goes into the Dynamic Fixture Offset page. This can compensate for X, Y, X, and the Primary and Secondary rotary axes. This function should not be used for simultaneous 5-Axis cutting. I've heard it can be used, however, I can see certain machine kinematic errors (the 1/2 offsets in particular) not being compensated for thus inducing error in the process. People often mistake Work Setting Error Compensation (WSEC for short) G54.4 for Dynamic Offset. WSEC requires the kinematic (often different from center of rotation) locations to be in the parameter table to function and will compensate in X, Y, Z, A, B, and C if needed. RTDFO is not capable of this. They are two completely different and separate functions.

Select all of the operation you want to replace the tool of and then right click >> Edit Common Parameters...choose the new tool...

Calling from an actual server somewhere or calling to the FANUC Dataserver? The 31i-B5 control is capable of running right from a Dataserver without the M198 whereas the 16i control is not and requires the M198. Here's an oldy but a goody topic that's been around for a while.

Select the ops you want to edit in the tool path manager. Right click-Edit selected operations-edit common parameters. Then you can click the box for tool selection and make your changes there.

Don't drive the Mesh > create a section of a Cylinder (Simple Ruled Surface), "underneath" the mesh. Use the cylindrical surface as the "drive surface", and use the Normal to control which side of the surface you are cutting on. Then use a "Collision Control" strategy, and make that Mesh object the "check surface" or "compensation surface", depending on which particular Toolpath you are using. A simple "parallel" or "Morph" would give you control over "how the tool moves across the "drive surface", and then you can use the "Retract Tool, Along Tool Axis" Collision Control, to keep the tool tangent to the Mesh, instead of the cylinder.

Dylan, thank you been a while since I looked at BE. Why I am willing to make some of the comments I make from time to time. I like many others have things to learn and glad to be educated by others who have more experience or knowledge about things I don’t. Now I have learned another thing so win-win.

Good answers here - I would like to think that you'll want a system - any system - and make it simple and clean. The problem is, people do things one way, another person does things another way. What you want to avoid is the silo-ing of knowledge that I see too often occur. What I mean is we have a guy named Mike. Mike helps get your machine shop setup and running, helps integrate the CAM into your company workflow, and man is he a good machinist/programmer. Mike does things his own way though. So yea while he follows the system pretty well he also has his own system (mental or otherwise). He even has a massive spreadsheet of what the company would consider critical data such as feeds/speed recipes for specific applications and also a fixture numbering scheme that helps keep his portion of the business organized. Mike gets a job offer at SpaceX so he is leaving the company. Guess where all that data is going? It's probably going along with Mike to SpaceX. So now your company is losing that data and the time and energy it took the guy to create that data. One way to circumvent this is what we do - we have an intranet network that deposits all of this key data into a shared location that anyone (or only some people) have access to. It is all organized by use-case need. HR people don't need speeds and feeds so it is organized as such. This helps with the little things, things that don't make sense to have into a formal system or ERP or PDM software you run. Things like contact info. You'll think I am a little wonky but I am not because it is really nice to have your rockstar service tech's cell number on hand so you can reach out directly (during business hours!) to that individual instead of having to go to the main office and try to get the tech on the line. If that # is only in someone's phone and that person leaves then you have a problem! At a most basic level you can name revs like "PN 123-456-789_Rev2.1_Jun2021" Anyways I'll stop waxing poetic about the beauty of systems and whatever but I would say it is a mission critical portion of any business that needs some serious thought put into it by any key stakeholders. Edit - another thing that I simply DO NOT do is saving NC files in a big database. For one thing, it may or may not be actually what you think it is. It may say it is the version you want but it might be that it got overwritten at one point. I always re-post from the Mastercam source file and overwrite whatever was there before.

This is a good thread and it reminds me of writing mastercam programs for our 2 axis Prototrak lathes. It took me a good while to get all the issues hammered out. We still havent found a good post that eliminates hand editing yet. For ex, i had a drilling op that I programmed. Had to go in there and dick around and actually change what cycle it runs on the drill op because it freaked out over G73 for whatever reason. Some of the fun (and hair pulling) in this game is hunting down these gremlins when they pop up. And it is never fun when you need to do something like figure out a post issue when you need production up and running on the parts. I want to throw in my tidbit of guidance - I have given up completely on MCfSW in my applications. And I am in the education field, so I am always trying to find the EASIEST CAM transition for brand new students. Granted it has been a handful of years since I switched back to teaching standalone mastercam, but I was having crashing issues, licensing issues, posting issues, and general lack of 100% of the features that I am used to in Mcam standalone. Never fun when half your class crashes the software after an hour of putting in the toolpathing work! There are a handful of important functions that just don't exist or function in a different manner. I have realized that Mastercam is really good at what it does - Driving toolpaths. Solidworks is really good at what it does - Creating CAD data. In my limited experience (6 yrs teaching) I have found standalone Mastercam is just better at driving toolpaths IMO, but your mileage may vary.

Depends, the basis for a good continuous improvement program is a robust "post and go" source file. If you are never going to see the part again, all bets are off.

Forwards or Backwards "tilt", relative to the direction of travel of the tool.

I took OP3 and reprogrammed it with tilt lines for the only wireframe and did everything you were doing in 9 operations. Let me know what you think. I did the walls with 2 methods to show you how to do what your were doing with wireframe without needing to draw the wireframe and still get what your were after. Really confused by the OP3 WCS X Axis not matching the OP3 Index operations X Axis. Why are they 90 degrees to each other? I normally make all of them align to each other, but if it works for you then okay, but through me off a little bit. I named your operation groups. I also renamed the operations in the those groups so when you post them they all don't post out with the same name. I also added viewsheets to the file to show you how I like to use them to help me communicate setup and other things to customers when I send them files I have programmed for them. Hopefully this is helpful and gives you some idea things you can do with Mastercam. Have a good weekend. Link to the file. 5TH AXIS MYSTERY PART OP3

these are amazing toolpaths, but they create point to point code this is not important when you have a modern machine tool with adequate memory but if you're feeding 80's or 90's vintage machines with 125k of memory morph is not an option

I reviewed the file and reminds me why I don't like the way Blade Expert finishes the blades. Here I prefer the way 5 Axis Morph Between 2 Curves does it using the upper and lower curves to blend the finish. 5 Axis Parallel is also a solid choice for finishing the blades.

I don't really care as long as the machine will run what is programmed. The G68.2 preposition is extra code and helps the programmer or machinist have a good idea where a toolpath is going to start, but when you have 50 operations using the same tool I have found the G68.2 before each one takes longer than just hoping between G43.4 and runnign everything all as one section. If the programmer has all the linking and everything else dialed in then no need for the jackhammer effect of sending it home between each 5 Axis operation. That also comes down the experience of the programmer and in some cases how the NC Format or Post is configured. CAMPlete does a good job of allowing things to be controlled once in there, but for MP Post falls back on the programmer to know what the mi and mr switches do to control this behavior.

I would make a turn profile.

@Colin Gilchrist, most of those options you listed are not available on the 18i control. These options below are probably the most helpful in this instance. You WILL need some servo tuning since most likely none was done with the factory given the age of the control. NANO Smoothing - A02B-0284-S687 Jerk Control - A02B-0284-S678 AI-NANO HPCC - A02B-0284-S669