I was pretty bitter about the interface change in the beginning. After a while I just conformed.

I think incong was just hoping I was a she/her. He's been too long between marriages. Facial hair is optional at this point.

I don't mean to start dropping pronouns but I don't know if we're talking to a guy or girl.

Some of the videos I watched were definitely a 3d roughing routine. Some were 5x. It was a dynamic/opti milling type routine and not retracting during the step ups. What I don't know, and what was admitted to here, is that some kind of linking was involved when he/they used mastercam opti to get it to work? I don't know anything about the other software used so I don't know if it was a similar shs roughing routine like opti? linking?

Ron made a good point when he said, and I'm going to chop this up with a horrible paraphrasing; if you're not on maintenance, what do you gain from your attempt to make mastercam better. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt before jumping on the dog pile. That said, I'd like to see this work in Mastercam.

I've been there. When I first started posting on this forum over 15 years ago I came from a system called Cimatron. There were some things that I couldn't do in Mastercam that were simple in Cimatron so my questions were always framed negatively "why can't mastercam do this" using Cimatron as an example. I was met with the same negativity, although I was never labeled as a pirate. I was however, willing to post files any time they asked for one. Even if it were just an example.

Software pirate or not, I'd like to see Mastercam be able to do this.

What settings did you use to get this to work?

YES! This would be fantastic. Having used a system that has this ability I feel hamstrung inside of Mastercam at times because it lacks this functionality.

If I didn't know why you guys were asking them to post a file, I'd post one just to see if someone could get it to work.

Thanks, but believe me when I say that these guys are far better with the software than I am. This is something that everyone may not have realized didn't work. The parts I make are usually longer than they are tall so the rapid retracts don't affect me. If I were machining a part that was 2" wide and 6" tall the retract to clearance would be horribly inefficient. This sounds like a good enhancement request. I wouldn't base your opinion on that interaction. Over the years there has been some mischief on the forum that starts off looking innocent enough but there are some key characteristics of a post that raise some suspicion. The best way to remove that suspicion is to post a file so they know you're 1) using a legit version/copy of the software and 2) not just here to criticize Mastercam Assuming his intentions are good, yea, he kinda does.

After going down the rabbit hole a little I see some scenarios that it's obviously more efficient if the tool doesn't retract. I'm not sure his given example is one of them.

I'm not 100% sure optirough can't do it. I just know that I can't figure out how to get it to do it.

I honestly can't tell what his intentions are. These guys are usually a better judge of character in that way than I am. Until he creates 3 other accounts and comes in having a 3 page conversation with himself about how horrible Mastercam is while the other systems he's pointing out are so much better. I hold off on the JB comparison.

I tried that and couldn't get it to work. It could be a setting I'm missing somewhere. I can set the 'keep tool down' distance to 100" and it still rapids (or feeds) to a clearance plane and moves to the next cut when there is a step up.

I think what he's talking about and not explaining very well, is in the paths shown in his video, when the tool transitions to the next z level of cut (step up), it doesn't retract. I'm not sure if I've ever seen Mastercam do that? It's easy to keep the tool down when it's cutting on the same z-level in optirough. When you transition to the new z level it picks up and starts at that new z level. Is that wrong? I've never even considered that an issue but also never tried to keep the tool down in that way.

I don't know why, maybe it was the change to the ribbon interface, but with few exceptions, always use the right click menu for toolpaths.

As far as the updating, I'm just wondering if this will continue to run through future O/S. It was written back in the XP days and looks exactly the same as it did back then. Do you know if it has the ability to step through macros while you're troubleshooting, or does it just simulate straight through?

Not to hijack the thread, but I'd been thinking about getting NCPlot for several years but it looks like it hasn't been really updated for years other than minor updates? I wanted to get it for troubleshooting macros and the editor math abilities. It looks like it's come up in price quite a bit as well?

I really wish we still had the popcorn emoji on the forum. I used my own.

That I can understand. What I'm talking about, is that we have 5 different machines built by 5 different companies, all using the same controls - every single one of them uses different code to adjust the Acc/Dec parameters, The Kitamuras are probably the most convoluted.

The Kitamuras, I believe, use an F value for the high speed accuracy and there are 3 Q levels just to make it more confusing.. I wish that MTB's would just stick to a standard. On our particular machines, which were first generation Arumatik controls , I don't think that you can control the accuracy when using HPCC (I'd have to look in to this to be sure) , but it looks like you're mixing code. The code should looks like this if you're using AICC and trying to adjust the accuracy. G990 Q1. F157. G05.1 Q1 That would be equivalent to G05.1 Q1 R3 on our Fanuc controls Those F values require the decimal point. It's just like using R1 - R10 except the accuracy values, on our machines anyway, are as follows R1= Q1 F12. R2 = Q1 F59. R3 = Q1 F157. R4 = Q2 F12. R5 = Q2 F59. . R7 = Q3 F12. and so on. I'd take a look at your manuals just to be sure. I'm also not the best at trying to explain things so.

I did the same. I liked the idea of being able to take it with me if I ever needed to relocate.

You're thinking of JB. I don't think anyone has heard from him in a long time.

He was a young guy who used to hang out on the forum about 4 years ago. He knew everything about everything.