Thank you, that was it! So does it matter which components are in each box? I put the z axis head and tool in 1st box, and all the trunion components and fixture in the 2nd box?

well, in my case I'm only using it for 3+2, and my current issue really is just that it is not detecting collisions between machine components, which is all I'm really wanting it out of it right now.

I'm going to try to call customer service directly in the next few days.

I got a model from our machine tool builder, and have it all setup and seemingly functioning properly in Machine Simulator. I went to test out the collision checking, so setup a drill to plunge 12" thru the part. When I go into the Simulator, the tool goes thru, then when the holder hits the stock, it detects a collision, but then when I continue, the drill gets deeper and the Z axis head goes right into the A axis tilt without showing any collision. When I run the exact same setup with one of the Generic MachSim 5 axis (trunnion style) it stops at the tool holder collision and machine component collision I checked that my parts of the machine are "geometry" and not "machine housing" I'm stumped as to what is wrong?

So just an update on this project, I applied G131 P3 (on my machine I have P3 slider all the way to accuracy) onto all my finishing toolpaths, and also broke all arcs into line segments of about .0008 with smoothing controls, .0002 overall tolerance. I set all the opti-rough toolpaths to G131 M3, as well as any of the other toolpaths that had helical moves. The next part ran with these settings, only 5 arcs failed on the profile tolerance, out of about 30-40 such internal corners. This was without slowing down feed, or adding spring cuts, or rest machining. I noticed too that many of the endmills that I had wear comps on to bring features on size, I had to take the wear comp out because they were now cutting much more closely to how they were programmed. by comparison, my original toolpaths, before any of these settings, G131 P/M or R, pretty much every arc on this part was failing on the profile, So I would say these settings made a huge difference, and will definitely be setup on all toolpaths moving forward. For those asking about the inspection, this is being done with a brand new Zeiss Accura CMM with scanning head and 1mm tip.

So I just did a cycle with all the 2d contours with the arcs set to about .0008 line segments and using G131 R10, would the P3 setting be better than R10? As I understand it from the manual G131 R1-10 will function the same as FANUC G05.1? waiting to get a report from CMM monday. We are using camplete for verification, but not running code from Camplete, as the machine is missing functions that Camplete post uses. Its a long story, but basically when the machine was purchased around 2011, they declined on just about every controller option. As such, the machine has no TWP (G68.1) no WSEC, no data server memory (only as 3000kb) no additional offsets, absolute bare bones controller. About the only option that it has which all 5 axis should have is TCP

The pre-finishing toolpath is an optirough leaving .0065 on the walls. internal corners are being left material heavy 6061 alum, the part internal corners are Ø.1875 and I am using a Ø.1562 X .750 loc 38° 3 flute endmill, in a Nikken SK16 X 90mm gage holder, 6000 Rpm 20 ipm feed. The deepest of these corners is about .500 depth tool engagement. Again, the initial toolpaths did not have ANY look ahead functions on. If it were any other situation than a .005 profile tolerance, it would be fine, but these corners are out by about .0005-.002

I should mention, I have added BOTH high speed look ahead and broken the arcs into segments now. My initial toolpaths when the arcs were out of tolerance were NOT using HSM settings, and each arc was just one line of code G2/G3. Also I should mention these are not 3d features, just plain 2d vertical internal corners.

The component I am working on has an overall profile tolerance of .005 to the entire model. There are dozens of small internal corners, all normal 90 deg arcs. Most of these arcs are falling out of tolerance on the .005 profile. I am already using a smaller endmill than the radius size of the arcs to reduce tool contact, and running modest feed rates and spring passes. I was recommended by a programming consultant to try turning on my machine's high speed look ahead funtions (Matsuura MX 520) and also to break all the arcs into line segments with smoothing settings in order to achieve better accuracy. Does anyone have experience with this type of strategy?

Thank you. I will look into this more in the future. What I find strange is that using Manual entry "as comment" already works as I like, starting a new comment in the code for each end of line in the input box. But I can't seem to find in the .pst why it is treating the group comment box differently than the manual entry box

Not having much success with the brksps function in the post. But now I realize that if a manual entry is the very first operation in the tree, it will post in the header section, so I'll just put what would be in my Machine Group comments there.

Thank you, I'll take a look at that.

I'm working from the MPmaster.pst (2020) and I want the Machine Group comments from the input box in Mastercam to output a new comment for each end of line from the box in mastercam. For example, inside Mastercam, in the box I have: Customer Part Description Offset Notes but right now, it outputs everything on one line: (Customer, Part, Description, Offset, Notes) Is there an easy way to change this?