Mighty_Viper Missed one

Sounds pretty cool J.K. If it wasn't proprietary, I'd send you a picture of some expiremental parts we did for an unnamed customer. I really didn't believe it was possible until it ran. Ohh...Shawn...the tolerance for most of our parts is +/- .005 on thickness. Flatness varies, but the parts are usually so flimsy it would take less than 10 lbs to restrain them into tolerance. Generally well within the restraint conditions.

Well...I have cut many parts like this...same material(7050-T7451). Thing is the flanges aren't that tall on your part. If you get adventurous give it a try. I did a part that was 1.5 inches tall and .030 thick. When I cut the outside, everything else was finished and I cut full width .500 E/M .070 stepdown 30000 RPM at 400 IPM(or more). Visually it looked kinda funny because the chip evacuation caused little marks, but the finish felt fine and no warping. You HAVE to use a short LOC solid carbide shank cutter, you HAVE to use a zero-.030 radius to finish down the wall(then clean up only radius with another cutter)...the .030 radius gives you less tool pressure. You HAVE to finish the wall with some material remaining on the floor so the rigidy is not affected. There is a learning curve...heh...don't get me wrong. I claim no responsibility.

I might add it is not really necessary to do that in my opinion. I usually melt it down by individual pocket unless the wall thickness is less than .050 Rough pocket leaving .100 then 2d contour straight to finish with .070 stepdown on .500 carbide 0 radius. Saves time from hopping around.

Pick all the chains and 2d toolpath then on depth cuts select finish by depth instead of finish by contour

Delete the name of the level and the entities on that level and it should disappear.

Are you using Incremental z-depth cuts? I tend to use absolute instead of incremental. I think you get more consistent results this way.

No dia comp in surf finish project I'd use Curve5ax. Comp to surface, Drive a chain, use a line to control tool-axis Assuming you are doing a 3-axis toolpath

We never used the C-hook. What we do is use a modified post to output the Matrix as a file. This allows you to define your WCS anywhere the part is...even in Aircraft coordinates. We then read this matrix into Vericut to establish a coordinate system for each operation. The matrix for each WCS is listed in the WCS view manager if you right click and hit info(For X2). There is a bit of a learning curve, but once it is going...about 5 minutes of setup time in Vericut and it is a push of the play button to run through all your operations without having to move anything around.

I always build a solid. If from IGES, I build a solid using the all surfaces feature. This allows ease of analyzing and creating geometry. When I actually drive a toolpath, I NEVER use solids. I prefer to create a surface from the solid and segregate the toolpath geometry from the model. I don't like having toolpaths associated with the solid. With large parts, and a high frequency of Rev changes on parts, It is simply more efficient IMO.

Select the surface goto ~screen ~geometry attributes Then there is a setting for surface density towards the bottom.

Thanks for the response Glenn. I kinda like the idea for a C-plane though. Makes the numbers when creating geometry all nice and pretty.

You do have to allow users full control over a number of files in the Mastercam directory in order to customize it. When we do an install, we have to log in as admin and the default settings installs Mastercam with read-only priveleges. I adjust the properties so all users have full control over the entire folder instead of hunting down the files you actually need. That way they can log on and use Mastercam however they want but cannot install anything else. That is while logged in as Admin, In explorer right click on c:Mcam(version) folder ~click properties ~goto securities tab ~select Users(All users or whatever you have it set up as) ~Allow full control in permissions area ~Then apply to all subfolders and files. Hope that helps

Who actually uses this feature though and for what? What scenario would you want to shift a tool mid program? I use tool-planes all the time, but I have never shifted them from the WCS origin. I think the question is why doesn't this feature DEFAULT to zero or not active instead of the other way around?

After playing awhile...I see now...boy that is irritating. I have only done 3 and 5 axis parts in X and the only scenario I use T-planes is on 4 axis parts. Ideally...I think it would be a good idea create planes relative to the active WCS and organize them in a subfolder under that WCS. I don't really understand what scenario it would be necessary to create a T-plane offset, but that certainly is the default. Now you have to go into the WCS view manager to change them BACK to zero. There must be another way. Does anyone use this feature, and what for?

I believe this is only an origin for your c-plane. It makes things simpler in that you can construct geometry relative to a feature instead of having no control over it. Any toolpaths should still be relative to your WCS origin, not the c-plane origin...unless your WCS is based off that c-plane.

Not Cool! Is the new "recent folders" drop-down on the bottom designed to take it's place??? I might like it... But how do you have the little option tab John?? X2 JP-Release??

There used to be a place to set the default(project) folder off to the right side of the OPEN menu in the Options tab. Now it isn't there. After playing with it a bit, I figured out that as soon as you save a file in a designated folder...it automatically sets the project manager to that folder for that file, so when you open that file, everything is already set. Cool.

I program everything from the bottom of the part. 99% of our jobs require multiple setups and it is always necessary to set origin off a feature that is established in the 1st operation...Which for Z...is always the bottom. To standardize practice...we make the 1st ops from the bottom as well. Also, when fixturing or using vises...etc. the origin position never changes regardless if there is minor deviations in the material thickness. It is common for us to machine parts with less than .100 inch excess on the stock thickness total(.050 per side)...and sometimes as little as .020 per side... so the last thing we want to do is require the operator to adjust z heights based upon his assumptions.

Welcome to the forum. It's not quite that simple in my mind. Mastercam can read a number of types of files, so as long as the other software can export one of those types of files, MCAM can read it in. After that process, it takes a programmer to assign toolpaths to the pieces of geometry(and perhaps construct geometry for the toolpaths to drive) in order for the software to output the proper G-code when post-processing these toolpaths. The post processor within Mastercam outputs the G-code which, if everything is set up properly, can be directly uploaded to the controller. The process within Mastercam is relatively simple with most 3-axis motion so that someone inexperienced can pick it up fairly quickly. As with anything, the more complex the product gets, the more knowledge of the software is needed in order to produce a quality end product. I'd suggest contacting a reseller and getting a demo. It should give you a better idea of how the software works.

We have had customers supply us Catia files that we IGES out and come into Mastercam without one flaw. Popular opinion says IGES is the weakest of the tranlsators. We have had customers supply us with Catia files that we convert to IGES, STEP, and used the Catread in Mastercam that required hours of fixing to get a good solid. None would do a good job...the models just sucked, but no discernable difference in CATIA. (all dumb models) Reading what James said...+1 It seems to be the case that it is dependant upon how it is modelled in the Native software.

The Acc/Dec at the machine affects the runtime considerably as well. Generally we consider the backplot time to be 2/3rds of the actual runtime. It certainly isn't perfect, but I don't know of any possible way to account for Acc/Dec machine settings...Especially when you are dealing with multiple types and brands of machines.

I have a machine that runs faster outputting point to point instead of arcs. I have modified the post to output point to point but was wondering what the variable that designates the tolerance of the conversion is. vtol : .0005 # circle in out tol Is this it?

Yep... STL out of Mastercam Then In Vericut Click on your component tree Then open design Click on the model tab On "type" click on the arrow next to "block" and select "model file" Then click on browse find your stl file click on "add" then Apply or OK Voila, your design model is in Vericut.

Another option if you have solids is to create a solid from surfaces then create curves on the solid. It generally gives you good geometry(lines and arcs)...assuming that the only wireframe geometry you need is relative to the edges of the trimmed surfaces. If you are trying to import stand alone wireframe geometry that is out the window of course.