I also like flowline for this, though I generally tend to use waterline instead (just more control) and set it to spiral. sub-.0002" tolerance on the arc filter for a countersink is pretty wild, I'd also set it to .001" as previously suggested.

Eldar said he thinks it may be an issue with windows 11, but he'll have to do some troubleshooting.

I just realized that from within mastercam, it's still looking at the trial license, while the standalone app as seeing the purchased license. It all comes from the same app, doesn't it? I suppose I'll try reinstalling the plugin for mastercam to see if that works. Edit: I've done a clean install of both the main application and plug-in and still have the same issue, I've contacted their support for help.

Howdy, The 30-day trial expired, so we purchased the license. I'm having an issue when launching the app from within mastercam. It seems to launch fine, but when I try to select a different material (it's loading a different one than what I select prior to launching the full app) it gives me the pop-up in the attached screenshot. It has all the license info, but there is no "okay" to select or anything, and if I exit, it reverts the material selection. You may also notice is says "license level: trial 30", but has the purchased license info behind what I've blacked-out. If I launch the app standalone (with mastercam closed), it seems to work as expected. Should I just try reinstalling the app or is there something I'm missing from within mastercam? For what it's worth, I removed the add-in from the ribbon and added it back in and there was no affect.

Ended up getting away with breaking it up into two toolpaths and adding some avoidance blocks like Bird did. The pads close in proximity seem to be the where the issue lies, so I put some blocks around them and it came out okay, it's not ramping in anymore at least. Sample.mcam

I've created avoidance bodies a fair bit with optirough to drive the shape I want, but I hadn't thought about applying it in this situation to see the effect. Thanks! I'll try breaking it up into a few paths and see if I can get what I want without creating the extra geometry first. Of course the less extra entities I have to create and move around, the better. You're right, even some other pads that are in proximity to where its working around corners, it echoes the radius to neighboring pads. Meanwhile, other pads are left with linear, single axis cuts.

Same, I only use this toolpath for finishing faces/floors when I've previously roughed with optirough, since I only have to change a few settings that way. Otherwise, pretty undesirable to use. I'll try breaking it up to see if chooses to not ramp the couple pads. As far as the diamond-shaped morphing though, it's done that before, just facing a rectangle with some avoidance in the corners, so I'm not sure what really dictates that shape, particularly on a surface with nothing to avoid. OT: This is going in a Mitsubishi MVR 35. It recently replaced our old cnc-retrofit planer that had a 8'x40' table. The sacrifice in X travel was greatly compensated for by literally everything else.....the old one was only capable of face/drill/tap and mechanically it was pretty shot, and only 500rpm spindle lol We sent it to the scrap yard.

Howdy, I'm looking for some advice when it comes to finish facing surfaces that have shoulders. I generally choose not to finish the faces of pads or bearing rails with optirough (even though this is a very simple way) purely for surface finish appearance. I often use 3D Area Rough for finishing these surfaces previously roughed with optirough and it pretty much always comes out the way I want. However, sometimes it will ramp in the middle of surfaces (reminiscent of Horizontal Area), even with "from outside" control with "outside" compensation. It also seems to completely ignore my entry commands, even with steep/shallow min/max at the same depth, it will enter from 1/4"+ in the Z axis. This is particularly annoying when using a tool not capable of ramping. Attached is a stripped sample file. I've noted two pads where it decides to ramp....seemingly completely random. I've tried expanding boundaries on these pads by a large margin and it still wants to ramp here. I also tried giving large "skip pockets" values and "apply leads" with no luck. Anyone know of a good way to do this without having to make a bunch of extra geometry or a bunch of different paths? It's so easy to rough out, and surprisingly frustrating to finish some extremely basic surfaces. Sample.mcam

Solids>Boolean>Add Though if things aren't just right (overlaps, etc.), it won't work.

Good call on the G49, that's what it was. Thanks James!

This thread was revived at a pretty decent time for me, as I have a question pertaining to this function. We recently acquired a Mitsubishi MVR 35 with a Fanuc 18i-MB control. This is the first machine I've touched that's had the G05.1 AICC function. In order to control the speed/accuracy setting commands for this one, G510 Mx (x=0,1,2,3) must be commanded before the G05.1 Q1. If not, AICC will still activate, but it will default to M0 for the finishing/"slow" setting. Anyways, I'm encountering a problem after indexing the RAH. G05.1 Q0 is commanded at tool end, before the RAH indexes. However, when it gets to G05.1 Q1 again (after RAH index, same tool), I get Alarm 5111 IMPROPER MODAL G-CODE (G05.1 Q1). I hit Reset, start the program from the G510 line and everything goes on as it should. I've tried adding another G05.1 Q0 before the G510 line, as well as a G80 for kicks, and no dice. I'm not seeing anything on the DRO for modal codes that would be causing this, so what could be holding it up? I know the mode is being cancelled because AICC no longer flashes after running G05.1 Q0.

I've been using my new pc for a week now and figured I'd update this with what I got and a toolpath generation comparison. i9-13900k currently with base clock of 3.0GHz, 32gb 4400MHz DDR5, RTX A2000 12gb. Came in just under $3k from our third-party IT service. Just in general use, opening and closing files, even moving geometry around on the screen, this pc feels leaps and bounds above what I was using. Loving it so far. There was a toolpath that took just over 17 minutes to generate on the old computer, the same toolpath can be generated in just over 2 minutes with this one. Thanks again for the input!

Even better/easier than that is Dynamic Contour or Optirest.

I run across a similar issue every once in a while, I believe it's with a particular center drill I have defined. It will show correctly in backplot, but in verify the holder will be backwards.

Yes, that also works.