Dave, emails received and replied to. Just waiting on the part file now so we can see what is going on.

Also if your program number is all zeros then you most likely never entered a program number when creating your operations. Set your program number in your first operation. You may not be keen on your reseller, but you are going to need him. Seems the issues stated are not in your post but in your use of Mastercam so give him a call and give him a chance.

A PSB file can not be decrypted or edited. The original files used to create the PSB must be used to edit and recreate the PSB portion of the file. Contact your reseller for help.

Check the 1025 lines in the NCI file to see if there is anything other than 0's in all the fields. IF there is more than just zeros then the post is doing what it is being told to do. The next thing to check is going to be contour flags. The contour flags on the motion lines. You can either check the NCI file itself or put a watch on the cstop$ and cgstop$ variables in the debugger. If any of the above have values then the post is doing what it is being told by the NCI file. If none of the above has values then it is most likey a syntax problem in the post. Maybe with an edit that was made or something, a Missing e$ or misplaced comma can cause things like this to happen. You should be able to see which line in the post is causing the M00 and trouble shoot from there. If you need to send a zip2go up to [email protected] with a note about the problem and a link to this post and we can help you out.

Logged as #96077. Running through rest of tests now.

Just verified Brian's problem and the first operation is NOT picking up the coolant and writing in to the 1025 line on the NCI. IF you view the coolant options by clicking on the coolant control then it does write to the NCI. I'll do do some digging around to see if I can find a more permanent work around. I'll get it logged and will have someone run through all the tests to see if anything else went bad. Did anyone send this in to QC? I just want to make sure I get the right folks tagged in the bug log. Thanks!

You may want to contact your reseller on this one and refer them to the Teck Talkin issues from March 2011 as there is some information on something that was broke and some post mods that might be necessary to make the helix work in all planes correctly that wasn't working prior.. Basically our default posts have logic in them that forces output for full arcs and Helix motion, for safety reasons, to the value initialized in the arctype variables in the post. We use the arctype$ initialization in the post to work around this until the control definition can be modified to allow for separate settings. Basically MP will use the value set in arctype - it gets copied to prv_arctype$ so when the CD overwrites it with the new setting we have the old one and use it for telling MP how to handle the helix and full arc output based on the initial setting of these variables. You should be able to add the following lines to your post and set them for the desired output of the full arc or helix for your machine and you should be good to go. # The following three initializations are used for full arc and helix arc output when the CD # is set to output R or signed R for arcs arctype$ : 2 #Arc center type XY plane 1=abs, 2=St-Ctr, 3=Ctr-St, 4=unsigned inc. arctypexz$ : 2 #Arc center type XZ plane 1=abs, 2=St-Ctr, 3=Ctr-St, 4=unsigned inc. arctypeyz$ : 2 #Arc center type YZ plane 1=abs, 2=St-Ctr, 3=Ctr-St, 4=unsigned inc. Even though the control definition sets the output of arcs, the variables and values above will be used to control the arc output on a full arc and helix. Confused yet? Hope this helps!

Try using a string selector and use lturret$ as the selector variable or just add the logic with an if statement. Don't know what post you are using but search it for lturret$ and see if and how it is used in other situations for some ideas. If need be you can always use the axis combination in the machine definition as well. If you are using a Mastercam lathe post then most likely you already have a user defined variable lathtype that you can use to determine the turret/spindle combination. lathtype is calculated from lturret$ and spindle_no$ lathtype : 0 #Lathe turret and spindle selection #0 = Bottom turret/Left spindle #1 = Top turret/Left spindle #2 = Bottom turret/Right spindle #3 = Top turret/Right spindle

A post class has been scheduled at CNC headquarters in Tolland CT June 14-16 (3 days) Available Training classes and dates For more information or to register email [email protected]

How's it's used depends on what the post writer intended it do so as Jimmy said you need to read the header of the post and look for comments in the post related to that Misc Value or 5 axis comp. If you can't find anything then you need to contact the vendor or person that wrote the post for you.

You can keep your programming in Mastercam generic ie - do not use the add to tool features and always use the base number for offset comp, then in the post you can modify the value according to what you want the machine to output so this leaves the numbering up to the post and not the programmer in MAstercam. The problem with this is that what you see in Mastercam is NOT what will be output to the NC in some cases and many times users don't like this and want to see it in Mastercam as well. The link samvatas posted has some good info as well.

one thing that is crucial to understanding out data is output from a post is MODALITY. Do a serch for modality or PRV_ as I remember writing up a lengthy response on this subject at one time. I will see if IO can find it. but in simple terms MP needs to determine when and what to output to the NC file so there are logical operators that give the post writer extra control when necessary. When variables are modal, their current value is checked with their previously output value stored in PRV_VarName. Every single variable, even user created all get PRV_ variables automatically. So when a variable is modal and the current value is the same that was previously output (PRV_) then it will NOT be output to the NC file. You can use a variable for many things and not just output so you also need operators to control what to do with that variable. When a variable is found on an output line it is output based on modality. Below is how MP handles the variables and their operators Regular output My_Var, e$ - (solve global formula if any, round/format according to FS, output the value in My_Var to NC depending on modality and update previous (PRV_My_Var)). Forced Output *My_Var, e$ (Sames as above except it will ignore modality and force output to NC file) Force conditional output 'My_Var, e$ - (first two are same, forces output but only if thee is some other output from same postline, or postline called from, updates PRV variable only if actual output occurs) Forced Update !My_Var, e$ (First two are the same, NO output to NC file occours, updates PRV with current value) Necessary when My_var is being used to store a value and needs to be kept in sync with the output code. Forced Format @My_Var, e$ (First two are the same, no output to NC file, DOES NOT update previous) this is handy when you want to compare a formated values in this case @My_Var = prv_My_Var. Forced Debugging ~My_Var, e$ (DOES NOT solve global formula, DOES NOT round/format, otuputs to NC file regardless of modality, DOES NOT update PRV_ The above has been around for many moons so even the older post guides and docs will show this data. Hope this helps.

buffers are not for the new post writer in my opinion. They can be a little tricky. I wrote that original code in the post zoober is using many moons ago, interesting to see that it is still in use. Jason, try posting the actual lines from the ERR file as well as the offending lines of code. One of my pet peeves is anytime you post code or anything that you are copying from a file use the full reply form and the CODE feature so everything stays nice and neat and lined up like in zoobers original post. Any other way makes reading code difficult. While I am on pet peeves, turn on line numbers in your editor so we can see the line numbers as well. Label not defined usually means you did NOT define the variable trying to be used. [XX] is the column number of the offending variable in the post line referenced by (XXX). If it comes up the same line multiple times that tells me it is in a postblock that is called repeatedly. Post editing can be easy when you follow some simple rules and the right information it given.

Normally when this happens you got stuck in a function somehow. When we can duplicate them we can fix them but there are many ways to go from one function to another and sometimes you may find yourself hung up like this. Please email QC and send along a copy of your Mastercam event log as there may be something in there that points us to the offending function or steps to repeat.

I urge you NOT to turn this off. There have been some bugs in the past that could cause bad code that you will not be alerted to if you turn it off. Use the tool the way it is designed and fix the errors for your own piece of mind.

Start with the config file and see what MTB file it is pointing to. Then make sure the MTB file is present. If so was this MTB file brought over from another computer or updated from another versions? If so then it is probably pointing to something that doesn't exists on your computer like a 3rd part addon or something. Make sure you have permissions to the file as well. If you are still having problems then please contact your reseller or our technical support department so we can help you get this cleaned up.

A single axis rotation error is caused by one of your toolplanes requiring more than one rotation to rotate into the machining plane. Normally this would cause your rotation angles to be incorrect. Just redefined the offending toolplane to ensure that when it is rotated into the machining view the XYZ axis will be oriented correctly.

You could try the Makino post that is installed with Mastercam X5. We have one that will support the new tech library format and one that will support the old method. Give them a try and see how close it is for you. I'm not familiar enough with the MGW-S III to say if it will work or not.

Well if you fix the errors in the post then the message will go away? Why would you NOt want to be told there were errors in your post???? Contact your reseller and have the errors looked at as I'm sure it's something simple that way if you ever have the post modified and there are errors you will know it instead of crashign your machine.

scalex, scaley, scalez are not broke or at least shouldn't be. Their use is tied to the fastmode switch (has been since v8 I believe - scale variables are ignored when fastmode is on.). We also do NOT recommend using the Scale X,Y,Z variables because of their inconsistent use inside of the MP executable. For wire it is typically ok to use them but I would still shy away from them. Modifying the post depends on the post you are using and how you are programming in Mastercam and. You could easily setup your machine definition to handle both the VMC and HMC spindle using axis combination so that the post can be written to read the axis combo and make the necessary calculation adjustments based on what you program. You should contact your reseller and get them to have a post guy look at it and quote the work. It will save you lots of time and headaches in the long run.

My understanding is that technically there are issues with the collision check in that it will not always report correctly (false positives and such) and seeing there are new features in the works like stock model that will be used to replace this making no plans to keep this feature updated or fix issues with it. If this tool is that useful to you and can't be replaced with something else in Mastercam than you probably want to layout your argument in this thread and I can pass it along to the Product Management team for review. You can always send an email to QC if you would prefer and we will pass it along. Another way to help is to ensure you have your Customer Feedback Program enabled so that we get a good representation of what users are using and how as this data will be used in some decision making processes.

The Collison check feature that was on the Right Mouse Button in the operations manager has been removed from the Mastercam application and somehow this change was missed and not included in what's new and removed from docs. Please use verify instead.

I'm pretty sure it is due to the fact the default files that are installed with mastercam X5 have the incremental option set by default and by doing a fresh install without updating your pre X5 files you are using the installed default files. On your laptop you might have used the file update function to move and update your files from X4 so it was using the files you had previously edited or modified. I'm pretty sure the default files in X4 where set to Absolute but changed for X5. Not sure why but I will investigate.

All depends on what post you are using. The ptoolcomment in many of the CNC Posts are used to build the entire output line and then output it. But when doing tool lists at the beginning of the NC file you need to incorporate the use of the PWRTT postblocks and processing so the NCI file can be scanned and tool lists can be built. Then you can call ptoolcomment from multiple postblocks to build the lines and output at different locations in the NCI -tool list at the top of the file, or tool comment at the tool change, etc. Try using the debugger to follow the postblock flow and output build and then you will know where it is coming from in YOUR post.

Are you sure the extra geometry doesn't exist before the solid operations are performed? How are you determining there are duplicate entities being created? What are your settings in the extrude dialog? I'm wondering if this is caused by the method being chosen for the extrusion distance/direction settings or something like graphics. I've tried duplicating this but can't find a way to do so and I end up with the same results as JP - the original 12 lines I created and 2 solids. Can you try and duplicate this in a brand new part file?!