The tool info was written out directly by the post in early versions of the posts that shipped with the machsim install. The chamfer tool was not covered. No everything is, including custom tools, thanks to machsim itself internally, which writes out tool definitions for each tool that can be merged into the .sim by the post. So the quick answer is, the post handles it, and the post you are using doesn't have that tool type covered off. Newer ones may.

Good news! So let me highlight what I think John is getting at. The results produced by Mpsubrep can be replicated using a standard post with subprogram support, using Toolpath Transform with the right settings. If you search for mpsubrep_newmethod, you'll find a link to a Mastercam file that demonstrates the correct settings. As a result of this, we've really shelved Mpsubrep, which is frozen at V9, although updates to make it run on X exist.

search for mpsubrep_newmethod

This is the Lathe forum. It's just been overrun by Mill guys for far too long. j/k To paraphrase a famous CNC Software guy "a mill is just a simplified multi-tasking lathe". The main forum has always been the best place for general Mastercam questions, regardless of the specific product. The Woodworking forum is a result of this main one feeling too 'metal' for the wood peeps. [ 03-26-2008, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Dave Thomson ]

quote: So Dave do you have all the posts on the system from the Start. I would like to go back to see my first post? James & Gcode how about you guys from the early days of Mastercam forum days? We actually pruned some posts out from the first few years. So although it would be nice to have all the history, we had to reduce our total storage space this past year. I'm sure your early posts were gold though!

"Who are you?" "The new #2." "Who is #1?" "You are #6." #1 was an admin account that was to be toasted for security reasons upon installation.

eMastercam.com is 8 today. Thanks to all who make this a great place to hang out!

Nullsoft Scriptable Install system. You should be using the install from www.emastercam.com/tools/html

You need admin rights to install.

Try the latest download. Email a screen cap if you would if it fails.

while the install path is the root Mcamx2 directory, the html.set appears in c:mcamx2millposts, c:mcamx2latheposts, c:mcamx2routerposts

If interested, I'd start figuring out how to get models of your machines. See if your manufacturer has them, and will share, or see if someone in your company wants a project... Unless your machine is in the default list, that's a major step to get a model set up. Solids is best so that each machine member can be easily separated out.

Search for 'machsim'. We've been slowly hooking up our post offerings up to this product. Machsim is driven from NCI through a post that outputs a specific .sim file. When driving verification/simulation from a G-Code file, you really need to 'reverse post'. I like this method because we can correlate the .sim and the .nc by producing them both with the same post. This product is nice for collision detection, but typically won't handle dogleg rapids, etc. unless the implementation in the post is taken to the next level. Also good for general envelope and over-travel studies. Stock removal is being implemented, but isn't yet to the level we'd expect using the built-in Verify. Mastercam's own Machine Simulation is slated to be part of the planned Multi-Tasking product. It's my understanding that we'll still be leaning on this Camaix/ModuleWorks product for everything else to start.

Yeah, if you omit sequence numbers on only use them for the subroutines, no worries. I should have mentioned the one I worked on needed sequence numbers in the regular code too.

We've done something for 'subroutines' vs. 'subprograms' in a Millplus post, which relied on jump commands to specific line numbers. Since it's internal to the same program you can get into some serious sequence number bookkeeping. Or you can devise blocks for the subroutine sequence numbers with some assumptions. In general, pain in the posterior as I recall.

Images from the C: drive don't display in html files located on a mapped drive in IE7. The fix is as follows: In IE7, Tools, Internet Options, Security, Trusted Sites, Sites Type in one mapped Drive letter - H: - for instance, and Add It will add file://server where 'server' is your own server name Close down and reopen IE7.

http://www.emastercam.com/cgi-bin/ultimate...8201;p=2#000051

Thanks for the bump (seriously). So, you got it. Good idea Trevor. I'm punishing you by making you moderator!

It takes seconds to add a forum. The only negative is that questions on core functionality isn't read or answered by the main forum crowd.

Same as Mark... No problems here on X2 MR2, running Windows XP Pro (US English install).

We promote our own posts over Mpgen5ax, so I can't comment specifically on that post. For posts that support solution flips, you must ensure that the tool does go fully vertical in order for the +/- flip to occur. [ 11-15-2007, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Dave Thomson ]

I posted an mpmaster with the machsim mods here: http://www.emastercam.com/ubb/ultimatebb.p...t=024082#000008 search for #machsim in the post

It's roughed out in Mpmaster to launch a .set style setup sheet (which is a post). Search for launch_set : 0 to follow the logic, and use it as a template www.emastercam.com/posts/mpmaster

quote: I don't know much about the simulation software MC is offering with Camaix (I use Vericut) but if the software is different and you're using Gcode simulation wouldn't that (or some other verification software) be the better choice for verifying your parts?G-Code verification uses a reverse post to get the code into it's own format. It's a good double-check, but actually another step, so the reverse post needs to be written well so that the sim motion is correlated with the code. With the CAMAIX machsim product, the Mastercam post is responsible for both G-Code creation the the machsim .sim code creation. If you take time to map each G-code output line onto the right machsim motion, it should be correlated and therefore no different from G-Code verification. If the post however thinks it's doing the right thing - say an arc - and the control interprets it a different way, the machsim would look the way we think it will be, where 3rd party G-Code verification might see it the way the CNC control does. [ 10-31-2007, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Dave Thomson ]