Right now, I don't use any of the newer functionality in the machine group setup. I don't because it feels like it's meant to be a set and forget. When I'm programming on 8 different parts/models, each with several operations, setting these doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm constantly having to change them and they're inconvenient to change. That's where that consolidated functionality window became very convenient. I'm not sure what the intended work flow is in this new machine group setup area, especially when you are programming several different parts, using several different sizes of material, several different fixtures for all of the different operations. What is the intended workflow in these situations? Another unrelated question. Why was the "tools" added to the machine group setup area?

That's really nice to hear. I can't wait to see this working. But why remove old functionality before the new functionality is, well, functional? How many version will we have to wait until the work flow of programming multiple parts/operations in one machine group is finally 'convenient'?

I work mostly the same way. Depending on what I'm programming I don't know if this is what they are moving toward, but it sure does seem that way.

In the machine group setup area. It's not difficult to add fixtures but if like me, you're doing this on the fly as you work on a large assembly, you have to keep going back and adding and removing levels, THEN, go to another window to change your stock using stock override, which is also crippled in that you can't create stock on the fly using a bounding box.

Removing that box removed useful functionality. I wouldn't care about losing the box if they added the functionality to the new area. They basically crippled the software and xxxxed up my workflow. I have no idea whether they intend to eventually re-add the functionality or not, but for now, it makes 2024 pretty useless to me for working on assemblies unless I don't mind the added time programming, which I do. And by the way, if you don't like that box, just don't click the xxxxin button. That seems like a pretty simple solution to that. lol.

I mean, it was very simple in 2023? It was all contained in one place. Click one button and everything was available to work with stock and tooling on the fly in one window.

I'm able to get around this removal of functionality (stock creation) by creating stock models and selecting them to verify. I like that added functionality but am really disappointed that they removed functionality for, in their words on the official forum, make it easier for training (paraphrasing). In the past I was able to throw a file together, use the old method to create a bounding box to verify, and then just check what ever levels I wanted to use for tooling. I can't figure out how to do any of that now in 2024. The functionality is just gone. I'm not sure why they would do that? So you're saying that there is a way to add fixtures on the fly for verification purposes? Right now, I'm working on an assembly that has several parts being programmed in the same file. I don't want to have to create separate files OR Machine Definitions for each assembly component just to be able to verify tool paths. I was able to do all of that very easily in 2023. Can you tell me if there is some kind of workaround for that type of work flow? ---- I'm able to get around this removal of functionality (stock creation) by creating stock models and selecting them to verify. <--- I'm not explaining this very well. I can create a stock model and without creating any official stock , just select the stock model and it automatically uses that for the verify stock. Really cool.

Can you use stock override to create a bounding box using stock corners? Or can you select levels to add fixtures like you could in 2023?

I don't know that I've ever seen a release go from PC1 to final? Seems kinda weird.

Ok.. I've had a couple of cocktails. Still can't figure that out.

I think I'm going to need a few cocktails to decipher the question.

I used one of these things for so long it took me forever to get used to a mouse with a wheel on it. And yes, the mouse button combination menus were about as efficient as you can get on a cad/cam system. I could blast through the menus so fast that you couldn't even see what they were.

When I first started working at my current shop they had two Apollo work stations set up with Cimatron on them. We were almost exclusively a mold shop. There are a lot of things I still miss about that software.

You may be thinking of TopSolid? I've never used SolidCam. The system I'm talking about is Cimatron. The old Dos versions of Cimatron. I don't have any experience with Cimatron E or newer.

I'm not talking about issues in the chaining. It would give bad results in tool path. Even if the chain would intersect, the path would wonder outside of the line. It didn't work at all if you tried it with arcs. I'll play with it when I get some free time and see if It looks better. If it results in wonky path I'll post the results. If it *does* work better that's awesome. It would be a definite time saver. The system I used prior to Mastercam would allow you to use any geometry as long as it intersected. It didn't even have to be on the same plane or intersect at end points. It was nice.

I got bit on this one time so I get a little apprehensive cutting corners now. If it does work better I would probably give it another shot. On simple geometry anyway.

I remember back in earlier versions of the software, loosening the chaining tolerance would, at times, give really bad results. Has it gotten better/more accurate with age? Better with solid chains than wireframe? I haven't tried it since pre X9.

Do you have this option ticked on?

1 I just wanted to post on a 16 year old post. I don't get to do that very often.

That one is better.

I'd be happy if you could just organize them after creating them.

Yikes. Thanks for the info. Using groups is still a bit cumbersome so I haven't really started using it yet. I think that I'll wait until it's a little more polished.

It would be huge if they would add a toggle to disassociate stock models to the tool paths used to create them leaving the stock model in place. Then re-toggle it when necessary. I have part files that have 20 (or more) stock models in them. It *can* become a pain in the xxxx.

I'm guessing that you may have 2 solids there?

That "hole" look a lot like a c-bore. What exactly are you trying to do?