Now if only there were a way to filter the library in the external tool manager, just like we can inside of mastercam

So far as I know, there is no ability to batch edit a group of tools for a given attribute, neither in the internal tool manager, nor in the standalone tool manager. And it would be very useful to have, so it will probably never happen.

One of the other things that I've noticed is that you sometimes have to define things in weird ways to get an assembly to work correctly, in terms of gage length. For example, with exchangeable tip drills, you have to define the drill body as a holder, and just the tip as the tool, which makes your stickout length and length of cut all wrong. What we need is to have the ability to stack multiple "tool" items, just as we can stack multiple "holder items", and then have those composite tool assemblies show proper length of cut and other relevant info.

I've never understood the reason for this

Yes, this is what I have for indexable tooling with material specific inserts.

Well, to elaborate, in most cases I have material specific tools, so splitting up the library would just result in a minority of the tools off in another place. And then my less technologically fluent coworkers would xxxx and moan about not knowing where their favorite tools went, or how to find them. Pretty much this

LMAO, no

I haven't used the function, But I believe that in your machine def config you can set to pull feeds and speeds from material instead of tool. But what I would rather have is material specific speeds, feeds, and cut parameters stored in the tool.

Well, You can use the trim function to circumcise any unnecessary toolpath motion, if you are dead set against using 2D Dynamic

I hope you're charging enough

Create a setup template file that has everything configured as you prefer, keep it in a zip folder containing it and a relevant folder structure, and just extract and rename accordingly whenever you start a new project.

I even get that when standing at the machine when the guy is running the new program.

It can be both good or bad, these things are force multipliers. It's just like going from manual machines to CNC, all it can do is produce you more parts faster, be they good or bad.

Well, in this particular case, I believe the model was perfectly fine until they exported it to a step file, as going from mesh to solid can lead to all kinds of errors where it tries to approximate all the polygons into faces, arcs, etc. The designers love mesh modeling, because it gives you the ability to shape the model in any arbitrary direction, this is how 3D sculpting software like Maya works, for example.

Yeah, I don't really have permission to share the model, but I know what you mean by the problem being from how the file was originally created. The worst I've seen so far was a solid poorly exported from a mesh model, I think the customer designed it in Rhino, not a single surface on that model was flat, parallel, or perpendicular to any other, misaligned faces everywhere, and it was a simple stupid little part too, just a flat plate with some corner rads, chamfers, and the company logo and name. The model looked like a piece of plastic that had been left on the dash of a car with the windows up on a hot day.

Yes, but not in the Threadmill toolpath. You'd have to set up a Contour Ramp, with a pitch rate of your thread, then in the Lead In-Lead Out setting of contour you can set a feedrate override.

It would be nice to have 2D dynamic rest paths work from a stock model, though, they would play well together with optirough that way

Well, I guess that eliminates one potential cause of the problem.

Yes, the worst part even with that, though, is I work 2nd shift and those people don't. So my boss simply asks if I can fix it this time the same way we did last time.

Go look in the arc section of your control definition settings

This makes sense. The only further question I have is what is the best way of interrogating a solid, for breaks, right on import? Because most of the time I find these issues a good ways into setting up toolpaths. And the Simplify, Optimize, and Repair tools in Model Prep didn't seem to do me any good.

Yes, my main co-conspirator introduced me to this method, it works magnificently

Or, just go caveman and put the tool on your optical comparator and get all the angles and radii, scribble it down on a napkin, and punch all the relevant data into the tool description window.

Yeah, and I understand why arc filtering is impossible. But having some sort of way to reduce gcode size would be nice, would probably require a spline interpolation mode on the machine though.

So the other day, I got volunteered to pick up another programmer's job. And after looking over his machining strategy and determining it was a massive pile of eldritch nonsense, I quickly made a copy of the file and set about doing things in a sensible manner. It was when I was adding some air chains for a 2D Dynamic path that I noticed my chains weren't chaining no matter what I did, once I zoomed in far enough I realized I was looking into the forbidden innards of a solid model through a crack in reality. I tried the tools that are supposed to fix this, in Model Prep, but to no real discernible effect. I ended up fixing the misaligned faces with the Move tool, which is a horrible and tedious process, and aside from having to use subpar tooling due to the usual suspects, the part actually ran quite well. So what other ways are there to quickly identify and fix borked solid models that I can add to my normal workflow?