I don't know if it was the same error but we've seen similar when we've had and R plane above the current tool position or similar situation. Sorry I can't remember exactly what it was but you might look for a bad R plane or Q value.

Yes. Easier, faster and better all around. After using wireframes and surfaces for years I tried the solids and within a few days goofing with it on my own I was making complete geometry MUCH faster than I was able to make the partial wireframe geometry I had been using for my toolpaths. Until you do it, you won't believe how much easier and faster you can draw what you need and your boss will be happy to see you using the features he paid for. Somebody else chime in on this please. I'm starting to look like some sort of fanboy here.

Absolutely go for the solids. I also began using Mastercam at V7and I've had the solids option just to work with some of the files sent to me for a few years. When things began to slow down at our shop I decided I had some time to play with using solids and what an eye-opener that was. Within a day or two I was able to do more with solids in less time than I ever imagined. I'm still smacking myself for not trying it sooner. I don't use the FBM, but I still get a large toolpath advantage from using solids due to the fact that I can edit the wireframe geometry used for the solid creation, regenerate the solid, then regenerate the toolpath based on the solid very quickly if needed. Also if you aren't doing it already, work with your WCS. Combined with solids, the WCS kicks major tail. Instead of drawing three or more wireframe views, you'll be creating a single solid that includes all features for any view you might possibly want, then you just pick or create your viewpoint and origin and knock out the paths. Also also handy with this method is that you can verify multiple setups and come out with a complete part on your verify screen. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Welcome to the forum Reko Here's a little project I worked on last night. Took me maybe three hours to draw in soilds and toolpath completely. Too bad I don't know anything about gear design or it would have been faster I'm sure! Suitable for my model helicopter anyway.

New name for me. 67Y was my military occupational specialty(MOS). Pronounced "six-seven yankee" when I was doing the job and it's a lot better fit, not to mention a heck of a lot easier to spell! Thanks for the help on the file guys

quote: Looks like a AH-1F Cobra. Thad I'm not really sure anymore! After I started messing with RC heli's I started searching around and most of the pics I find of the S models have the bubble shaped canopies. The more pics I found the less sure I became of what was supposed to be what, haha. What I do know is it looks a WHOLE lot like the AH-1S model I used to work on when I was a young helicopter mechanic. I think maybe at one point the army retrofitted various models with the flat pane windows and didn't rename them just to make things confusing. They love to make things confusing! Suits my purpose whatever it is

faucet? Ron, are you calling me a drip? Yeap, it's completely faceted. I even tried creating curves on all edges and screen>statistics came up with 59789 lines and 17257 untrimed surfaces. Not a single arc or spline in the place! I was hoping it was all in my settings but sounds like maybe that all this model has to offer, huh?

I have an IGES file that I think is probably OK but when I open it all the surfaces come in as planes ( so funny! since it's a helicopter )... I've tried playing around with the tolerances in MC but seems like I can't make the model come in any better or worse. Are there some IGES filter or version settings I can change that might give me a smooth model? I'm hoping I can get it close to the one shown here: http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/preview.aspx?ModelCode=22926 Right now it looks like this:

Yeah for the guitars! I didn't know so many here were doing that stuff. Here's one I did a couple years ago before I knew much about solids. At the time, I couldn't figure out how to draw the neck like I wanted it so I ended up carving it by hand. I can't begin to explain how much better solid modeling is for designing stuff like this. By all means jump in to the solids as soon as you are able!

I don't know if the platter height is consistent from machine to machine but I can tell you what we have. Would be interesting to hear from other Haas trunnion users to see how much these number vary. Our VF5 with the 210mm platter has the platter surface .1192" below the A axis centerline. Our VF6 with the 310mm platter has the platter surface .1354" below the A axis center.

I used to have those kind of troubles with my old computer on X3. Seems like there was a conflict or something that would cause it to glitch out or freeze up or whatever several times per hour. Since I built a new computer I've only had to restart Mastercam (X3 or X4) maybe a couple times a week because of problems or errors. I usually close Mastercam between finishing one job and starting another, but I also will sometimes run 3 or 4 sessions at once if I'm looking for something or comparing something between files.

I use 3-4 lines of text within the program to describe the orientation and origin of the part along with the X+ tool list. I'll rotate the part around on screen to best show what the operator should expect to see so that when I hit HTML on my X+ output, they get a descriptive screen shot. For the most part the jobs run without a lot of questions. I'd say try to be descriptive and minimal if that makes sense. I did have a part time programmer that wanted to write a novel at the beginning of each program and the setup guys would have to ask me what to do every time.

I've been playing with this for a while now and it's better than I had hoped for or even imagined. I don't need to do this very often, but it will be a pleasure to do it now this way. Thanks much for the tips.

Outstanding. Thanks a ton!

Seems like I read something recently about making dimensioned drawings from solids in Mastercam, but I can't find it now. I don't make dimensioned drawings often, and even less often from solids but I have had to do it a few times. What I have done is create curves on all edges, orient the wireframes to the view I want, then project to plane, delete the elements I don't want to see, dimension what's left, and repeat for the other views. There's a better way than this, right? Thanks for any help

I always just double click right from my email and it does the job.