In reference to Johns question: Not just the support arcs boxes but the helix support boxes are checked also?

code: helix_arc$ : 1 #Support helix arc output, 0=no, 1=all planes, 2=XY plane only This should do it.

+1 to James This is the only way to do it. When I bring in a customers part they are usually in aircraft coordinates. It really helps to leave the part there and program around it so when they send a new revsion it's really easy to figure out what was changed. and it really, really helps w/ verification.

Their is a size advantage of using incremental in the sub program. It will only generate 1 program. If you use absolute and you are transforming sveral times then you will have several different subprograms. As far as why yours keeps coming out in incremental I'm stumped. Right under the subprogram (when selected) there is an option for incremental or absolute and that always works for me.

quote: I want 3-d to be an option at all times like ver 9 !!Murlin you've lost me buddy. I'm in 9 right now and It won't let me select 3-d for a flat chain. Do you mean Ramp?

Setting the angle depends on couple things. material: For steel I go with a smoother angle than aluminum. Clearance: are there walls I don't want to violate. and The angle of the surface to your current toolplane also makes a difference. There may be other factors at play here also it just depends on your situation. If you put an example of what you're trying to do on the FTP I'm sure someone would take a look at it and make some suggestions for you.

It's been a while since I've dealt w/ 13-8 but I thought it shrank in heat treat. So.. I did a quick google and found this HTH

They felt it was no longer needed to support conversion back to mc8. Linky I don't know when the CatiaConvert will be available.

As far as I know you certainly can. We are running both X and 9.1 here. No problems. Alot of the guys on this forum are doing the same.

If the chain is not closed when you select an entity on that chain the start point will be at the gap.

John, Here's what I've done to my post so that I can put out some specific code. I'm not sure what the 1005 and 1006 check boxes are really for on the manual entry but here's what I use them for code: pcomment2 #Comment from manual entry scomm$ = ucase (scomm$) if gcode$ = 1006, n, scomm$, e else, "(", scomm$, ")", e$ Now if you want to output code just click the 1006. If you want a comment in parenthesis just leave it on 1005. maybe this isn't the right way to do it but It has worked for me.

I will definetly agree that Johns way was Nice and compact. I only know enough about post's to be dangerous. I will have to learn more about the math involved w/ the Int and Frac values. Mike thanks for the link. and Heavy, Wasn't a problem. John ended up doing all the work for me I just had to get it into your post. I think my original way would have ended up working (once I got all the bugs worked out) But fortunately someone else saved the day.

Which version? And i'm curious here, what do you mean "had been projected". Did you remove or change the original toolpath that you are projecting? Something you could do is check to make sure all of the surfaces you were using are still selected. Also make sure there is nothing wrong with the original toolpath you are projecting. If somehow it lost it's toolpath then maybe you need to re-chain it. Just a couple of suggestions.

Thanks John. I was able to get that incorporated and it looks good. i knew there had to be a shorter way. Heavy youve got mail.

Works for me too. Thanks Jim.

I can only think of a couple places to look. First in job setup make sure "from tool" is checked under feed calculations. When importing make sure you do not have the "calculate feeds and speeds" checked.

Same as you guys, now I'm getting that original error again.

This is what I get now.

A work around until this is fixed is you can make a line perpindicular to that point on the arc, then make another line perpindicular to that one. Kind of a pain but it works.

Heavy, I think I have fixed the output to be three places Here are all of the changes I made Replace the entire pindex section to this. It's cleaner i believe fixed our issues code: pindex #Index output spaces = 0 if index & rot_on_x & cabs <> prvcabs, [ if indx_out < 100, n, " ", sindx_mc, "0", e if indx_out < 10, n, " ", sindx_mc, "0", e if indx_out >= 300, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "3", e indx_out = indx_out-300 ] if indx_out >= 200, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "2", e indx_out = indx_out-200 ] if indx_out >= 100, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "1", e indx_out = indx_out-100 ] if indx_out >= 90 & indx_out < 100, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "9", e indx_out = indx_out-90 ] if indx_out >= 80 & indx_out < 90, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "8", e indx_out = indx_out-80 ] if indx_out >= 70 & indx_out < 80, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "7", e indx_out = indx_out-70 ] if indx_out >= 60 & indx_out < 70, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "6", e indx_out = indx_out-60 ] if indx_out >= 50 & indx_out < 60, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "5", e indx_out = indx_out-50 ] if indx_out >= 40 & indx_out < 50, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "4", e indx_out = indx_out-40 ] if indx_out >= 30 & indx_out < 40, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "3", e indx_out = indx_out-30 ] if indx_out >= 20 & indx_out < 30, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "2", e indx_out = indx_out-20 ] if indx_out >= 10 & indx_out < 20, [ n, " ", sindx_mc, "1", e indx_out = indx_out-10 ] if indx_out < 10, n, " ", sindx_mc, indx_out, e ] spaces = 1 also change this code: fmt A 4 indx_out #Index position to this code: fmt 16 indx_out #Index position These changes caused the post to put out the following nc code code: ( DRILL AT 0 DEG ) N24 M80 N26 M80 N28 M80 N30 X0. N32 G98 G81 Z.9 R1.1 F10. N34 X-1. N36 G80 ( DRILL AT 3 DEG ) N38 M90 N40 M90 N42 M93 N44 X0. N46 G98 G81 Z.9 R1.1 F10. N48 X-1. N50 G80 ( DRILL AT 9 DEG ) N52 M90 N54 M90 N56 M99 N58 X0. N60 G98 G81 Z.9 R1.1 F10. N62 X-1. N64 G80 ( DRILL AT 45 DEG ) N66 M90 N68 M94 N70 M95 N72 X0. N74 G98 G81 Z.9 R1.1 F10. N76 X-1. N78 G80

Hiring me as the programmer. Sorry I couldn't resist.

Welcome to the forum. As long as you are asking for help w/ getting your post working You'll find the people here are very helpful. But if you ask straight up for someone to give you a post you will be asking for trouble, and probably a lot of insults. The easiest thing for you to do would be call your reseller and see if he can get you a post that's ready to go. If they can't help then we will certainly help you get a generic one tweaked to work for you. Slepy

Like Thad said "No." But like you said "it would be great to be able to drag the operation manager " And that's all I have to say about that. Oh well you can always use that second monitor to have Emastercam open. Or solitaire.

Not a problem, hopefully we can getter' figured out.

Under configuration go to the post processing page and uncheck the edit box. also you can select a different editor on the start/exit page