Part of the problem was that it was my understanding that something HAD to be in the "Actual Diameter" field of the 640MN Controller, I was wrong. Testing showed that the machine will not alarm out with a 0 entered in this field. This makes things much easier. I was afraid that because of the nature of this controller and the parameter settings, I literally could not have both types of program without doing something like adding a negative radius value to the "Actual Diameter Correction" field when using wear.

I think a combo of an attention getting M00 stop with a message reminder, and G10 automation will be a good strategy. I will need to learn how to use G10 and macro programming, but that will be fun and I love new tools in my brain. Setup sheets/work instructions for each part will now include a big orange font cover letter, saying "this program uses wear compensation" and an explanation of what that means with pictures of what the values should look like.

Thank you everyone for your replies, I am reviewing them now.

Hello all! I landed a job helping to improve and update a machine shop, and it's been a real stretch but we're making progress. I'd like to transition from using Control Comp to Wear Comp, partly because it's easier and better for our programmers, partly because we want to standardize tooling and get away from using a 1/4" when the program was intended to be used with a 3/8" etc. Our machines are Mazak VT 200c's with parameters set to use the Tool Data Diameter value, and we have many hand-written legacy programs that were written using this method, so I can't just go and switch the parameters without ruining our proven legacy programs. I have found that if I post a program using wear compensation, add the diameter to the Tool Data page as normal, then input the radius of the tool as a negative value in the diameter compensation, the program works exactly as expected. Could this be a viable strategy to program using wear while we transition? Then once we have a good amount of programs redone in Mastercam, we can switch the parameters over on at least one of our two machines. I don't know any other way than to switch the parameter on and off , but our operators do not feel comfortable doing this and I agree. Any advice on making the transition from Control to Wear would be greatly appreciated!

Just wanted to add the conclusion to this issue. It was my mistake. I did not factor in the length added by the collet when I calculated the pivot distance; I was measuring from tool tip to collet face, not from tool tip to spindle face. I was missing a whole .41" because of it! Adding .41 to my pivot distance sorted it all out.

Well tool tip vs center did not seem to solve my issue. Thanks for the suggestion though, i'm down to try anything. I don't think our current post uses TCP at all, I never see any of those codes. and it certainly does not output any D#'s

Hello all, I have a 5-axis Motion Master router I'm trying to program and I'm having issues with z depth. When I'm doing 2d paths everything seems fine, but when I start doing a Curve Toolpath to cut the bottom edge of the part, which has the tool tilted at 90 degrees, it seems like the depth is always high about one whole tool diameter. I have double checked my pivot distance number for my post and it is correct. My compensation is set to computer, and the correct side for the direction of my chain and cut. The machine is an older one with what I see referred to as a head-head configuration (x is on the table, y is on the bridge, b,c,z, are on the head). It uses a Fagor (8055 I think) controller. Any advice or help anyone can give would be so so appreciated. Thanks all!