This has served me well... https://www.balax.com/holesizecharts

Typically I can get an 0-80 rollform .010/.015" off the floor using rigid tapping...the guys will creep down it .070 is plenty of clearacne for a rolltap

On our database I have lists for tooling, setup sheets, program numbers and critical dimensions. On Word I have "do not run", "to do", "material hardness and density", "macro variables", "macro systems and routers", "Mastercam levels", "calculations", "synced tooling", "part process improvements" and isolated notes per part number. Other than that I don't have much.

Here is a thread calculator.. https://www.guhring.com/Tech/tapdrill

Agreed, the gnomon looks like the one that gets installed with it as well, if I recall. It's been a good couple of years since I installed it..

Kennametal 4 land drills work exceptionally well in these applications and blow guns drills out of the water for speed.

Maximum clock speed, overclocking, 64GB RAM. i9 is a good choice, much better than Xeon. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Try a G98 or G99 in the G81 line You will also need an R value

Took a moment of lucidity and tranquility on a Saturday morning to see the problem, even after Ron and others helped me, I didn't see it. The problem was that I was still trying to use the systems Top WCS on the second face, which makes complete sense that it wants a 5 axis move. That was the problem. I had to create a "New Top" and use that as my WCS. A lifetime of having "on 4th axis opps TOP is always your WCS", goes to show that we have to have an open mind to program. Learned something new today. Thanks to Ron and all those that helped.

Email was sent with the answer. For those following along yes he was using the wrong WCS for this operation in the process. They added checks that were not present in previous versions that wouldn't give you this error. The code will still post, but the error is now showing the Only Single Axis Rotation. He needs to use the same WCS that is facing the correct way for all the Planes in the operations and life is good. There was no need to create a copy of the part and we can still use one model for programming like he was trying to accomplish. A copy of the original WCS just rotated around Z 180 degrees and then used for the other side would do what you need. Since this is a 4 Axis the new logic is determining the correct X axis direction of the WCS not just the Tool and Construction planes. All 3 have to match or we are really trying to accomplish 5 Axis machining not 4 axis machining if we break down the Matrix math in the background. 0,0,1 dz is a Top Vector thinking 1D and the problem is we need to look at it in 3D. 1,0,0 dx 0,1,0 dy 0,0,1 dz Matrix layout. With TOP/TOP/TOP the above is correct. Problem is with spinning the planes in relation to that we really get this Matrix. -1,0,0 dx 0,1,0 dy 0,0,1 dz The Axis is rotated 180 from TOP/TOP/TOP thus we get the negative X start for the Matrix.

This was discussed several years ago. There would be some advantages, but also major gotchas. The way I use my tool library, I'll load the cutter from the library, and change the stickout and maybe the holder for a given part. I expressly do NOT want that to alter all the other files in which I've used that cutter. I also recalculate cutting parameters for most cuts, and very much do not want those changing without my say so.

Not missing out really comes down to personal preference on something like this. That is one the major strengths of Mastercam. Many ways to accomplish the task. I listed my reasoning and why I go about it the way I do. It is up to each of us to determine what suits our work flow and process.

This is one of those video's that gives you the realization that there are many people out there in other industries that have a DEEEEP knowledge directly applicable to our profession and possibly have more creative and or efficient means of solving the day to day problems we run into, many of which problems most of us don't even know we have.... I am deeply frustrated with the leadership of our nation in the last 40-50 years and how they have classified machinists. If you look into it, machinists are generalized as being the lowest IQ, even considered barely "functional" members of society. While there may be grunt labor in the machinist labor force, I have found this to be far from true, I would consider most of these people to have been either under challenged during their education, or not mature enough when in school to realize the application or importance of a good foundation. I feel lucky that I had people challenging me and gave me a healthy appetite for learning about what interested me, but at he same time, I wasn't mature enough to realize the importance of the foundational knowledge that I have been exposed to but can't recall as I wasn't invested to learn at the time. This general classification our government has put on "machinists" has made it very difficult to attract talent that is willing and able to think at the level of the young woman who created this presentation. I feel if there were more high level thinkers in our industry who were willing and able to encourage and nurture the "under challenged" folk, our industry in the country would evolve into something more sustainable. I realize that there are some of us on this forum that possess both some of the hard and soft skills required to be those mentors, but we are few, and typically not at the same place of employment, only to collaborate on improving our collective trade on forums such as these. Hopefully my ramblings are coherent, getting the jumbled mess that is my thoughts onto paper isn't even close to a linear process....