Sorry. More information is needed. The top part has different features than the bottom part. This is operation 1 on B0 B180 these parts will be flipped (About B axis) into soft jaws and rotated 90 degrees about their respective Z axis ( Center Stock) Then the Parts will be clamped together on B90 with a shared feature for OP3. Obvioiusly, creating stock models and manipulating them via Plane Rotations would be time consuming and a waste of time. Best to save as STL and import to a level....which is fine if i'm in Mach Sim and I can define stock by level. But what if I want to just quickly use "verify"? Which does not allow you to define stock by level. Then I have to export all of these as stock models and combine them somewhere else (Solidworks, Gibbscam, etc.) and import them as one STL....all because Mastercam will not let us combine solids that do not physically share space in any way. And on that note; if I need to move something like say just a single station, I get to start all over again, instead of being able to split and rejoin by booleans. I suppose the common sense answer is....only use verify for single operations. But it loads so much faster, and in many cases its worth the extra time to combine the bodies. Either by exporting, joining and importing, or by connecting the solids with a solid web which can usually be done with a quick swept profile. MachSim has to render the post, the machine environment all of that.... it takes quite some time.

All this trouble because.... " ! Boolean add operation would result in a disjoint body. " cmon...really now. I've been doing it a silly way, but for me its no more time consuming than saving stls and importing. I just create a .010 circle cross plane to each of my solids and boolean add. Messes with collision detection though, so I wouldn't recommend for a surfacing operation that would interfere with the construction portion of the solid.

Delete pass worked wonders here, Thanks Ron! Never used the toolpath editor before, didn't even know it existed.

1) Warning- 3D contour w/ comp. in computer off) does not output change at point information. Change(s) will be ignored. Trying to fix one little move I dont like in a surfacing path. Saved toolpath geometry. Generated a 3d contour using that geometry directly. But now all my rapids and approaches are feeds. Other comp settings destroy the toolpath. Left Compensation at Off and added Changes at points in the geometry. I get the attached error. It would be great if this worked this way. Anyone know a similar way to manually override these things giving us as much control as this would if it worked? Thanks in advance.

More on... ahem "Moron"... Change at Point features. I cant tell you how many times I've had a surfacing path nearly exactly how I wanted it with the exception of one gouge or move that I either change manually in the code or found a different toolpath to work with, which is time-consuming. One way I've nearly found to fix it without any hand editing is to Save the toolpath geometry, and convert it to a 3d contour with compensation off. It would be fantastic if I didn't get the error. "1) Warning - 3D contour (w/ comp. in computer off) does not output change at point information. Change(s) will be ignored. This prevents me from changing some of the rapid moves that are converted to feed back into rapids using "Change at Point"; and forces me to fix the code manually. If anyone has any workaround to this it would be great to know. Also the wireframes keep their color filtering. I wonder if, even better, there is a way to mask the movement type (Rapid, Approach, Cutting Feed) based on wireframe color.