Dynamic Transform has always been my go to for repositioning. It seems to make more sense intuitively.

I did not know this, thanks for sharing Colin!

Do you want the two lines of code inserted every time there is a z move? If so, I think you would need to copy your mi4 if statement to right before the G41 cutter comp line. In the MPFAN post the G41 cutter comp line is in the following postblocks: prapidout plinout pcirout I believe you'll get what you're looking for if you paste the mi4 if statement right before the cutter comp line.

In the solids tab there's a button called "layout" is this what you're looking for? It's very lacking compared to a true cad system, but it may be good enough for your application.

On the main page of their website, if you scroll down a tad there is a section about "Free Demo" Thee Byte Website

Another thing to consider is the tolerances. Are you opening up the hole after drilling, or is the drill finishing the hole? What is the tolerance on the location of the hole? These are usually the driving questions for whether or not we spot for our drills.

Just want to say a formal thank you for frequently taking time out of your day to share your knowledge Aaron! Mastercam's code structure is interesting to me, and I've never heard of checksums. The more I learn about the code behind the beast, the easier it is to understand why things work the way they do. Thanks again!

A couple of my more skilled coworkers say that 20-30 years ago (at the same shop we're at now) they used to get handed a sticky note with a list of tools on it. They would run whole jobs with just a sticky note. I can't imagine scribbling a few tools on a sticky note and not drawing up a whole packet of OP sheets.

If you go into the levels manager, in the settings, and check on "Only active level is visible" and "Arrow keys set active level" and leave everything else unchecked, I think you can accomplish what you're looking for?

We do a lot of aerospace and defense industry parts. Sometimes the customer needs 1 part and sometimes they need 1,000. We have a pretty good mix of different quantities. We have a tool sheet that looks very similar to your first image which has all the tooling information on it. Each custom tool is an additional sheet to show what the tool is. 1-2 sheets for setup (x / y / z zeros) which are screenshots or "print to pdf's" of solids and notes drawn inside Mastercam. Add a handful of inspection sheets (print to pdf's again) and a couple screenshots of the part after it has run through verify, and that's what our guys get to run each OP. As far as I know we've never looked into automating our tool sheet generation, but it isn't a bad idea. I'm sure it would save a lot of us a lot of time.

There was a forum thread a while back about this, though I think it was on the official forums. If I remember correctly, the response was that there is no way to change the chain order. Model chamfer automatically chooses the chain order regardless of the order defined in the chain manager.

This video walks you through turning on PWE. This must be enabled to change parameters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEELHseoX5E I'd recommend writing down anything you change in case you want to change it back in the future. We keep track of all our parameter changes right in the machine parameter manual.

We have a Fanuc 16i control and the parameter# is 5101.0 (FXY) 0 = always Z-axis 1 = specified axis (G17 / G18 / G19) The wording in our book is: "The drilling axis in the drilling canned cycle is: 0 : Always the Z-axis 1 : The axis selected by the program" The parameter is in the manual with the other canned cycle g-code parameters.

Is there anyway this is a miscommunication and the original post means MC2024? X4 = 24 ... Maybe?

Have you run canned cycles in G18 / G19 mode before? I believe the machines are typically defaulted to only allow canned cycles in G17 mode. There's a parameter you need to flip to change this. If you need it, I'll see if I can dig it up in my notes.

Here's your file back. Morph_Trial_JakeL.Mcam I turned on a second check group (Parameters > Collision Control > Checkbox above big 2). Then you can uncheck "avoidance geometry" in #1 check group. In the #2 group, in the avoidance geometries, select just the two wall surfaces. Then if you uncheck machining geometries it allows you to input a number into the "stock to leave" field. You'll also have to check the "flute" box in check group #2. Hope this helps!

Alright here goes my explanation: When a G2 / G3 code is called there are a handful of values the machine cares about. 1. The start point, or the x, y values the machine is currently at before starting the G2 / G3 line of code 2. The end point, or the x, y values on the G2 / G3 line 3. The center point of the arc, or the i and j values on the G2 / G3 line. This is a little more complicated because the i and j values are offset values. For example if you start at x = 1.0 y = 1.0 and i = 0 j = -1.0 then the center point would be (x + i , y + j). In this example that means your center point would be (1.0 + 0 , 1.0 + (-1.0)) or (1.0 , 0). 4. Finally the arc radius can be calculated from the #1 start point and #3 center point. In the example above the radius of the arc would be 1.0 For a G2 / G3 line to execute, the #2 endpoint must lie on the #4 radius. If we use the example above, the code would look something like this: N100 G01 X1.0 Y1.0 N101 G02 X2.0 Y0.0 I0.0 J-1.0 This code would execute properly because the point X = 2.0 Y = 0.0 does fall on the defined radius (a rad with radius = 1.0 and center point at (1.0 , 0)). Now if we alter the code a bit: N100 G01 X1.0 Y1.0 N101 G02 X3.0 Y0.0 I0.0 J-1.0 With the new endpoint x value being x = 3.0, the end point is no longer on the defined radius. This is what is causing your machine to alarm out. The machine does the necessary computations (finding the #3 center point and #4 radius) and then tries to go to the #2 endpoint and realizes the endpoint does not fall on the defined radius.

Got it, that makes a lot more sense. I won't be much help in that case. Have a nice day!

It looks like on the N108 line you have a bad number. If you don't have a good understanding how the G2 / G3 code works I'd recommend looking into that. If I tried to explain it it would just sound like gibberish. Regardless, if you do out the math (or use a CAD software) the N108 line will not compute out correctly. Basically you are asking the machine to make an impossible move. I can try to give a better explanation if you want but that's the gist of your issue.

Unfortunately I've never used Productivity+ so I can't help you there. But unless I'm misunderstanding the question, I think you have everything you need. It sounds like what you're looking for is how to figure the depth the csink tool should go to. Correct? If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like your Z value is the value stored in #601 minus .17. So this code should machine a Ø.405 csink. To change the csink dia just change the .17 value to the depth you want the csink tool to go below the surface.

I have dabbled in post editing, mostly just reordering, adding, or deleting certain codes. I've never gone into the math of it, mostly because I haven't needed to. Someday I'll have an excuse to dig into the math, and I'm sure it'll be frustrating and make no sense... I'll love it. Thanks for all this information!

lol

I swear it is baffling how many new things I learn on this forum, thank you. We rarely do this, but knowing how is a very important tool in my toolbox for when we do need it. I love the math behind all this stuff. Not saying I want to do all this out by hand all the time, but little problems like this break up the repetitiveness nicely.

That is exactly what I was looking for, thank you! I never thought about using hole axis to get the angles, but that does the trick on my actual part. That absolutely is an easy button compared to doing out the math. As for the sample file, there was no holes in the solid model. This idea is untested, but I think I could load in a 5 axis machine, create a surfacing op, and set the tool axis perpendicular to the angled face. Then if I post that operation it should give me the two rotation angles.

Thanks for the reply. I have used bisect line in the past, but I don't think it would be useful in this situation. Unless I'm completely overlooking something, which is entirely possible.