I installed MR2 side by side with V9, X, and MR1. After realizing how much better MR2 was than the previous 2, I uninstalled them, no problems since. +1 on saving all the config/post files

Vericut makes me want to be a better programmer. When a part is 12K and you get a first article with Vericut's help, it's worth it. When a part is 200 bucks, You can scrap a lot of first articles to justify the savings.

I prefer to project an upper and lower control chain onto the surfaces you are going to cut then drive the chains. A fair amount of geometry creation is needed since generally radii need to be redrawn in order be tangent.(Corner radii not tangent cause the tool to shake) Also, I sync by entity so I may have to modify the chains in order to get the break points in the correct location to control where the tool fans. It is a lot more work than just selecting a surface, but the difference at the machine is worth it to me.

The best case scenario in my opinion is working around someone who has experience with the software. The basics of Mastercam are easy, but forcing it to do exactly what you want it to do can be somewhat tricky some of the times in surfacing and Multi-axis. This is common with most CAM systems I believe. There are many features that seem redundant to beginners, but actually provide different results in different scenarios. I would say that is the most difficult thing to learn, which method to use in which scenario. I'm still learning, but only when myself or a co-worker explores the software beyond how we do it now...or *shudder* someone scraps a part. If the parts are simple, I say the learning curve is slight. So start simple, use the forum, and no problem.

Edit! Well then...good thing I didn't post

We have an A88 Cell. Good machines! Knowledgeable and dependable service. If I had to choose of all the horizontals I have ran or programmed for...it would be a Makino.

4 GB on the new one. 2 GB on the old one...never ran into a toolpath Mastercam wouldn't process with the old one. 2 GB is plenty for MC in my opinion. Other software had issues as the size and complexity grew with the old one though. Graphics on large solids gets some lag, but the RAM doesn't make much difference on those.

I have had similar problems with 2d swept. It seems to be a bit glitchy in the way it associates with geometry. Occasionally I will have to chain the geometry in a specific direction in order for it to generate even. I wish the parameters page on the old wireframe toolpaths would get an update to the standard of the rest of them as well. Maybe a lead-in/out...or a similar clearance/retract availability. They are good simple toolpaths that only need a small amount of geometry creation.

I get this problem often. Most of the times it is in fillet or corner radii, so I generally just delete the offending surface and create a ruled surface from the end splines/arcs before I create a solid from the surfaces. Depends on the frequency...step or catread eliminate the problem, but since IGES is our standard, sometimes it's just easier to spend 5 minutes fixing the model and going on rather than trying to export it in a different format. It has been that way since Version 6 I might add.

I've got a single processor 4 GB of RAM with dual monitors and I have trouble running two sessions. A coworker has a dual processor with 2 GB of RAM with dual monitors and he runs multiple sessions quite often with very few problems. Both of us can run multiple softwares(to a degree) at the same time. Dual monitors is worth gold in my opinion, but if you want to run multiple sessions or Mastercam along with a powerful software like Vericut or something... dual processors seems to be the way to go as well.

We have had parts large enough that using them as solids is not an option in Mastercam. Even to dynamically rotate them caused a lag, not to mention trying to actually drive the solid in a toolpath. Our method is to create a solid and create surfaces from the solid to drive(then save solid as a parasolid and delete it if size dictates that) Makes it much quicker to generate the initial toolpaths and much easier to regenerate specific toolpaths relative to certain surfaces when there is a rev change on a part instead of regenerating all of them because the solid has changed.

I checked out what you suggested a bit Ron, but then remembered the Coromill's I used to remove massive amounts of material with. Decided on a Sandvik Coromill 331 3.150 Dia should do the trick...plus they are rated to 18000 RPM. Think I will start at 12000 though until I see how it handles. One shot with about 5 times the feedrate. Anyhow...Thanks for the feedback

Anyone aware of a cutter out there that can cut a clamp slot .75 axial and .25 radial in one cut in aluminum? We use a wheel cutter with a .250 depth right now and make multiple passes...we also use it fairly rarely, but now I need something for a large part with decent quantities. What I would like is about a 2 inch dia with a .750 LOC and a 1 inch to 1.25 inch shank with a minimum of a 2 inch stickout. Thanks, MLS

MMT, The software is Austin NC. It is certainly capable of handling the problem, and it appears most likely I will handle the majority of it there. Colin, A filter script is a good idea to clean up the file more or less before we read it into the post software. I could actually change a few other things while I am at it, and force everyone to use that in order to output an NCI file that will run through. We have an .apt post that someone who worked here previously built for Version 9, but since we are making a migration to a different post software as well as to X, it would require a bit more of my time than I am willing to commit to it right now. Austin NC has been on top of any of the problems I have had and has an almost .apt based language which I am much more familiar with than NCI code and Mastercam posts. At this point I am trying to understand more of what Mastercam outputs so I can idiot proof a few processes before they get out of hand. Thanks for the info and ideas MLS

Colin, So the Settings in the Control definition tell the post what to do more or less and have no effect on the output of the NCI file? The toolpath tolerance will help some, but I need a more failsafe way to control these issues than using filters as we have multiple users of Mastercam.(some who refuse to listen) I had my fingers crossed that a simple config or control def change would do it. The filter NCI file sounds interesting though. Is it possible create a post that runs this chook only?? Thanks MLS

I am curious about what is output to the NCI file. We are using a third party post software so we can generate the same code from multiple CAM softwares. The software uses the NCI file from Mastercam.(.apt from CATIA) etc. When you change tolerances in the Control/ Machine/ or System tolerance setting, does the output of the NCI file reflect these tolerances?? Or do the Mastercam posts look for this information within the MCX files in order to apply it to the data in the NCI file? I am getting an output where it swings an arc .000001 from the previous position and am looking for a way to control this inside Mastercam if at all possible to alleviate some additional logic and processing time outside of Mastercam. MLS XP MCX_MR2

If your control has the capabilities, you should be able to construct somewhat simple loops at the end of each tool to write, and rewrite to the offset table until you get the number of parts you desire. You could have a number of simple variables at the beginning of the program to define the offset distance, number of x and y steps, then do the looping after each tool is complete to test if it has ran enough parts in order to avoid tool changes. This is assuming you are only trying to run one TYPE of part at a time and not nesting a whole bunch of different parts at the same time. If you were trying to run different parts, you could possibly write subprograms to call individual tools for each type of part, but then the part would have multiple programs(1 for each tool) and it could get really messy. Too messy for me to imagine in fact. Of the controls I have ran, I know Fanuc and Acramatic 950 and up have this capability. It just takes a little study and testing in order to figure out the language and variable format. MLS

I have imported many IGES files. One thing I have noticed is that when exporting the IGES out, it is best to use the Surface and B-spline setting in CATIA V5. Mastercam likes those settings best. An IGES out of CATIA V4 is worth a handful of Advil in my experience. I have tried to import a solid with the Catia translator and have got deviations in those, but from what I have dealt with STEP, I'd agree with Colin and say you get what CATIA gives you. Personally, I prefer importing as surfaces then creating the solid in Mastercam, because I almost never get an accurate closed solid model without errors. If I import as surfaces, I can fix it. MLS MR2 XP

CATIA offer a DMU which is more or less a look/ measure type of module with no capabilities to modify the model in any way. In fact, the only way to view annotation in some of the models is with the DMU. V4 has annotation options as well which many of our customers still use. Fortunately, V5 DMU can read the V4 model in without losing the annotation. I believe the DMU module was around $3500 for us, however that price may be on a discount because we have 3 or 4 seats with different options. I'm not aware of any software that can read these type of notes unless they are in the drawing form as you mentioned David.

David, The translator works OK. I'm not sure of pricing. We have CATIA and I have tried IGES, STEP and the CATIA translator, and the CATIA translotor usually produces a better result. This isn't always the case though. Sometimes I might go through all three to finally get something that won't take me hours to fix. One thing I have noticed is when importing a complicated 5-axis lofted part into Mastercam as a solid, the complex surfaces on the solid are wrong(sometimes). If you import it in as surfaces then as a solid, you can compare and see as much as .020" deviation in the two models. It is rare with any of the translators to get a closed solid body out of the gate. Generally I import surfaces and have to manually fix a couple areas then create a solid from surfaces unless it is a small, simple 3-axis part. That also depends on the customer. It seems not all CATIA models are created equal. Some require quite a bit of work rebuilding or re-trimming surfaces...some require none. MLS MR2 on XP

Thanks, I'll try that.

Hey I downloaded the MR2 Catia Translator off the Website and attempted to install it after deleting my previous versions and it was unsuccessful. I got an Error 1316. A network error occurred while attempting to read from the file C:WINDOWSDownloaded Installations{3B957251-75B1-4D1F-901E-BB4D016D9BC8}Mastercam X Catia Translator.msi Any Ideas??? Thanks, MLS XP MR2

OK...so related to any of the numerical fields in the toolbars because they all work that way. Perhaps this is intentional????

I see...related to the Z-depth then because I noticed you can't Zoom or manipulate your view at all until you click in the screen as well. Fortunately I don't use this as much as the ones inside the toolpaths and those work properly.

Hello, New to this, but been reading the forum for awhile now and picked up many a pointer. I found something mysterious in the Power key. First...have to say I was quite happy to see them come back, saves me tons of time not having to retrain my fingers. Anyhow, when I try and set my Z-Depth on the lower Status bar by right-clicking, selecting Z-coordinate of a point, then typing the E on the keyboard, the power key is not recognized. If I click on the !(AutoCursor Config) and exit, then it works properly, almost like I am reminding it...Hey...look at this Config that says you are on Power Key!!! Anyone else see this? MCX-MR2 (Slowly Migrating) MC9-MR0105 (When I am in a Hurry)