thanks guys. good to know that once in a while it's not me.

under hsm core roughing, the default for stepover percentage is 45% if I change it to 70% it uses 70% of the old tool not the one I've just selected. ie, when I select the path it opened up using a 1/2 ball nose. I selected an 1 1/4 bullnose and I changed the stepover percent to 70% and it changed the numbers to .15 and .35. should have been .5 and .875 has anyone else noticed this?

under linking parameters there is an option for vertical arc entry set that to zero

Since loading MR2 it is using a logic driven default. It depends on the tool selected. If your drill is a spot drill, it defaults to drillcbore, if it is a drill, then peckdrill, if it is a tap then, tap cycle and so on.

quote: Edit - Simplify added to the RMB or you could assign a hotkey to it. +1000

I'd also love to be able to verify my roughing paths while I'm programming my finishing paths. That would save me an incredible amount of time and save the company some coffee expenditures as well.

quote: How come you can bye a Cad design program ( parameteric as well )with all the options for the same price its going to cost me to just a SOLIDS licence for mastercam.....it just don't add up the cad system doesn't have to know how to machine a solid. It only has to know how to builid one. Mastercam is as reasonably priced as any Cam software with solids, that I've used. But I would love for it to have solid assemblies and the full functionality of the parasolid kernel.

MR2---sorry. I was able to just regenerate the paths and they were fine. But that could be catastrophic if it would've happened sometime after verifying and before posting.

I had 2 windows of X2 open at the same time. I just went to verify one of them and it was verifying the other one instead. So I went to backplot the first path which is a drill path and it backplots like a helical bore path (which is the first path in the other window. I closed both windows and reopened only the one I wanted to verify and same thing. any help? this program was good at one time. It's already been run once I just wanted to verify the top side program with the backside program that's already been run.

quote: (yes my dads finally making the big switch) I just have to ask? Did your Dad invent the internet?

ATP is a mastercam add-on. ATP stands for automatic tool pathing. go to mastercam~help~contents~index~ATP. It explains it pretty well. HTH

I think you're taking it wrong what I'm saying. I apologize if it sounded harsh. I'm actually very pleased with mastercam paths and they have proved to me time and time again that they care what I'm saying. My point is that when I try to explain to them what I want in the solids portion of the software it seems like I'm talking to people who have never solid modeled before. I honestly mean no offense. I don't know how their QC department is laid out. Are the people who reply to us developers or phone answerers. I'm not sure about that. But my point is. I'm trying to politely and correctly tell them what I want. I bought this seat of mastercam 3 years ago and so far nothing has been done on the "solids front". I understand that X was a major overhaul. And they addressed what people told them they wanted. But if I don't say what I need how would I know if they have plans of adding it in. There are some super intelligent people putting a lot of time and effort in on the cam side. and I'm greatful for that. I hope they could put some of that brain power to their cad side soon. PEACE (back atcha)

quote: What do you think the new interface for ?? If that's what the new interface is far then that's great! But they don't tell us what's coming down the pipes and if I don't tell them what I need, I could be waiting for a long time for nothing. Do you have information on new solid improvements that are coming?

quote: Parametric modelling (Can't be too hard, Alibre is about $2k) Assemblies (As above) Holder library for ALL toolpaths (OneCNC does this well :flamesuit on:) Stock, fixture, clamp recognition (We define one solid for verify, why not more than one?) +1000 bruce At some point the solid modeling has got to be improved. I've been emailing QC about some of their downfalls. and it doesn't really seem like they get it. ie. solidsremove face it should be able to remove a face and reconcile the solid to keep it closed. instead "Removes Face" makes it an open sheet body. No other system I've ever used does that. But the solution QC used was to turn in a request that parasolid translations use a history tree. You can't really have a history tree if the other system doesn't output a history, why not just fix the problem?

I've had that problem before as well. We came up with a plan collectively here. We put program change forms on the backs of our setup sheets, so if there is a change that will make them run better next time they can write it down. So if the program won't run write now or it will save big bucks to change it needs fixed by the programmer. but if it's just an enhancement that would be better next time. it gets wrote on the change form. But sometimes you just have to put your foot down and tell like it is.

I've programmed them, but never run one. they are sweet machines though.

Welcome Davey, this forum can help you but your questions are pretty general. It would be helpful to know what part of the industry your in and a few specifics about what you are wanting to do.

I like X a lot now that mr1 has come out. There are some good videos (free of charge) to help you understand the hsm paths. I didn't have any training either but it wasn't that hard to learn. There are some really helpful people on this forum and they'll be glad to help.

Welcome to the forum!

howdy

Gcode, are you a beta tester? Talk about a teaser!!

quote: Well Pete still doesn't have that coffee and beer thing perfected yet. Well maybe they could release mr1.5 until they do.

quote: I have it from a good source that it will be released very soon, i heard as early as today, the 10th of May

hey I did too and wasn't even lookin'

quote: My question is do you guys reccommend roughing the contour with a regualr square or hog endmill first and then finish with the ball endmill. yes