Top notch IMO for everything you mentioned.

Is the machine capable of comping on 3-d movement? Know some will only comp in planar motion.

Not super well versed in this but have thought about the same thing some. Question... Where do the harmonics reside? I understand that they are generated by the contact of material and cutter, but in my mind they transferred and/or magnified into the spindle based on the tool, holder, spindle design, bearings, etc. That being said, would changing the harmonics in the material based on the parameters recorded at the spindle be the same as at contact point? Also, how much would be lost at contact point... are there lost or diffused harmonics within the transfer? Dunno... just questions that popped into my head.

Used to run an old Viper B5000... bridge style, nutating head... Programmed some 3+2 parts for it. We didn't have a good Mastercam post, other guys were using NCL and did full 5-axis decently. Post? Vericut? RTCP capability with it?

I can attest to that. It works similarly on simple parts in Mastercam and Catia although there are features that are kinda handy... but for the complex parts... Same story basically. Mirror and the simple toolpaths work fine, but often times you are re-picking geometry. Especially on 5 axis cuts.

Never heard of this, just was reading about it... the things you miss out on without an integrex... Can you switch from virtual to actual through a macro? ... or is it a totally different interface? Wondering if you could virtually simulate to a certain block number, turn it back on then continue to trick the machine.

I always drew two lines, one for X and one for Y then select them to define your WCS or plane. It was the only foolproof way IIRC

I use Catia mostly. Still use Mastercam for legacy stuff. I prefer Catia now, but for the Cad side mostly as well as dealing with a largely Catia based aerospace market. The Cam side is comparable in that they both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. From what I am aware of around here, these two systems are the most common. My choice would be one of them. If I were doing much modelling at all I would buy Catia, if it were Cam only... Mastercam.

Hopefully they are at least feeding you now and then... and more than a pitch.

Whoah hey Don, hope you are doing well. Makino and Mazak are what I am most familiar with. I'd rate Makino highest. Best control, best features, best service around here.

Work PC sucks eh? How bad? It does run faster but you better have some RAM for complex, big stuff. They say 2 GB is preferred... seems a bit low to me if you are running CAM and Vericut side by side. :oldforum headscratch:

Crash... no. Knock on wood. I have had some issues resulting in unexpected results. An old Mori in circle interpolation like mkd said. Working with multiple people using and modifying the files is one. It used to be a lot more problematic in older versions because of the file structure, now we have them locked down well. If your collision between components is not set properly you can crash. A subplate was added to one of our machines but the collision between tool and that component not set. Looked a fool putting a nice scar in the subplate. This could have been very bad. The most prevalent issue I have experienced is running autodiff on large parts and not going through the results with a fine toothed comb. The gouge 'shadows' in radii look remarkably similar to an actual gouge on very large parts. Not for the weary or hurried eye. That has bitten me a couple times.

Not much experience directly with the system, but every place I have worked has had it and know some related to my job. Seems to be less about conventional quality ideas and more about documented procedures and maintaining evidence that you actually follow the procedures. From management to deburr. The big pushes over the last five years or so in the shops I have worked(of which I am aware) are digital product definition, cause/corrective action, preventative action, and risk management. Our system has procedures for almost everything that address what the standard(or auditor at the time) says is critical. I get the impression sometimes that the expectation is to have a system in place where anyone off the street could walk in the door and produce a quality product. If the system is built to this level it becomes more about procedure and less about personnel, which I personally find debilitating often times. The benefit of a somewhat loosely defined system allows enough room for personnel to do their jobs efficiently. A rigidly defined system constricts the ability to effectively get a part out the door. It can be rather cumbersome in a job shop environment sometimes. Keep in mind though this is my opinion, I am certainly no expert. I asked our quality systems manager, she suggesting buying the AS9100 standard from SAE as probably the best starting point.

I think you should be able to set up and define a flag variable under G41, have G1 turn this flag off, and have G2/G3 test the flag and alarm if it is on, but carry on with the program if the flag variable is off in the gcode processing settings. If you have support, contacting cgtech is the way to go. They are great guys. Edit: Also depending on how your code is put out you could put a condition in G41/G42 AND G2/G3 on the same block for it to alarm. That would be easier.

Never done any super intricate work, but I have heard the same story about all different kinds of things. Reality is rather evident... it is a lack of expertise in using the software.

http://www.nikken-wo...dle-Speeders/20 That's the only one I could find unless you go air driven then check out Koma Precision.

The construction plane is for drawing geometry on that plane.

The multiple modes was exactly what I was fighting with that machine... always a trade-off with decent accuracy or speed. Sounds like they may have caught up though... cool...

I haven't seen one, but I have heard that before somewhere. Ours are six or seven years old I think. Do your machines have the new control?

I have worked with Makinos and Mazak mostly, a couple mori's and mitsui's... A SNK or two... We have a 730 variaxis which is a decent machine. Much more effective on 3+2 work than full 5-axis motion IMO. Pretty solid. Makino is a ways ahead of Mazak control wise and speed wise IMO, but it does depend on the application you need. 33K is nice for Alum production I do have to say. R&D and one-off, or it you ever need to cut anything hard I think I would stick with a bit slower spindle.

It's also possible(if your machine supports it efficiently)to have the linearize rapid parameter turned on. Some machines do not handle it well at all, but some do and lose little if any time in linearized rapid motion versus dogleg motion. Another option is to output G1 @ max feedrate instead of G0. I would only advise doing this on machines where the max feedrate and rapid rates are equal though.

Should be a setting in the control definition under NC output for sequence numbers.

I was looking at those Hardmill a while back. Do you have the hydraulic stamper thing or just chuck up the raw stock and clamp them down?

Have a couple RWP-001SS for a couple years on one of our cells and ran countless parts(alum) without issue. The 006 should handle that size. We have gone considerable larger than the recommended size with the -001. Just make sure you hit your prep size tolerances and the rigidity is quite good in our experience. Have yet to cut Ti or stainless but aluminum is no problem.

Hey Rickster. If you are dealing with only Mastercam, I would stick with their posts. Perfectly capable. If you are dealing with multiple source codes.. (i.e. CATIA, NX, Powermill, APT/Mastercam NCI) then there are posts like ICAM and Austin NC that can take either so you have one translation software instead of many to deal with. I would stick with one CAM software if it were my shop, because it is a PITA trying to jump from one software to another back and forth. If you are wanting verification, IMO Vericut is the answer. The time I would spend trying to verify something in CATIA OR Mastercam would be considerably more plus less reliable as it is prior post apt/nci to gcode translation and without machine/control specs. Never used Solidworks, but theoretically so long as it can export STL models oriented the way they are in Mastercam, then the need for solids in mastercam would be to use the MCAM to Vericut interface. We do all production though, tooling/molds/etc. might be a bit different payoff.