Which parameters Doug? Those labels are handled down in the text section of the X posts. If it is on the custom parameters tab you'll have to add in the labels something like this code: [drill cycle 10 custom parameters] 1. "ID PROBE PARAMETERS" 2. "" 3. "" 4. "" 5. "" 6. "" 7. "(S) HOLE SIZE" 8. "(W) WORK OFFSET" 9. "" 10. "" 11. ""

Are you trying to update a pre-X post and text file file to become an X post? If so place the .txt and .pst file in the same folder and run the updatepost.dll after pressing ALT+C

quote: what are you posting for? A few actually, Haas, Kitamura and a Robodrill. I already have good posts that make clean edit free code. When it come to the sub-programs though, I cannot get the kind of output I like to see.

:bump: no options?? Can it be done without tearing out the complete logic and starting over?

Daniel, It does work, however the version available on the site is an updated V7 version. I am looking to see if I can get a newer post with all the new functionality to do the same things. It works and it works well just trying to see if I can update.

Hi all, a lurker comes out of the dark. I have searched for an answer and have not found what I am looking for anyway. I like the format the mpsubrep uses to output sub-programs but can I get a newer post to output in the same manner. I am partial to the mpmaster and it does obviously output subprograms but I like the Absolute, 1 program for one operation. Are there any edits I can make to a standard mpmaster or mpfan which will allow the same kind of output. Reading through the mpsubrep it is an older post that has been around awhile and I am not sure it is such a great idea to start using a V7 post at this point in time. Thanks for any and all suggestions.

CNC Software???? :crickets:

I like to set them up with certain things set the same, lead ins and lead outs, a lot of settings are controlled through the tool definitions as well

Is the OP manger visible on your screen? Alt + O

David, This might be part of your issue here code: if use_clamp & not(opcode$ = three | cuttype <> zero), [ p_lock = zero s_lock = zero pbld, n$, s_slock, e$ pbld, n$, s_plock, e$ ] In the generic Fanuc 5AX the locks come out of the checks, it check ofr an if the opcode$ equals 3, if it does it skips it, opcode3 is all of your drilling cycles. That's why you are not getting it. You might try changing the lines to this code: if use_clamp | cuttype <> zero), That will remove the check for the drilling opcode. Check it carefully though

quote: who is trying to run X2 from a number of desktop PC’s and want to save all the data to one location (a server). Has any one else encountered this problem ????????????????????????????? Don't run off of the server, work locally and save to the server.

quote: 90% of my programming time is LOST TIME spent reprogramming a part with a mild change. The feature recognition available in Mastercam will take some of this away. It is not perfect yet but it was released as a feature enhancement in X2 and should be further refined as MR's are released.

Dan, After looking at your part, there are a couple of things. First, I see where your TOP origin is, but is the to center point of rotation. You want to machine the blade and the ends. My suggestion to you is this. Use the 2 line method for creating tool planes, the solid option works if your face is correct in orientation to the part, otherwise you tend to get twisted origin and it looks like that's what you have. If you go into your config >> screen and enable WCS XYZ then turn on your planes you'll see they are twisted into the wrong orientation. That's why you rotations are wrong. I suggest the 2 lines method because once created in the correct rotation, when you ocreate the plane there is little left as to the correct orientation HTH

quote: It´s like the holder definition thing, why can I just verify ONE kind of holder?I hope this is address in an upcoming release. The industry is way past the one holder now.

Well here's a question. A grey area let's say. First of all, I am not condoning or decrying the use of "cracked" software, I simply ask the question as a point of discussion. You're a machinist and you work somewhere that uses CAD/CAM W let's say. You believe that you could learn to use this software and perhaps better youself in your job opportunities. So you surf the 'net and/or contact, perhaps someone you know. You procure this piece of software. Now you spend the next 6 months of your spare time learning how this works. No money has been made, no shop had benefitted from your "illegal" activity. Now you can go out and get a legitimate shot at possibly jumping a rung on the ladder of advancement, at whose cost? The software, rightfully so, is too expensive for a person to purchase to learn on but the desire to better oneself has led to a technical breach of the law. Is using a piece of software in such a manner wrong? No one is technically harmed. The software company was not going to make a sale there. By doing so the user has just created another user of the software and expanded the base of people using "software w". It seems that in the end the more people that use the software the greater the chances of more sales because more people can use the software profitably. Opinions?