Got boxes today. In addition to the new mousepads, the boxed version has an amazing new feature that isn't in the download version: hardcopy documentation!

I've thought this was handled strangely. You want to select solids, so you select solids. Okay. Now you want to select edges, so you click on faces and bodies? I don't like that. I'd rather click on what I want, not on what I don't want.

All that matters is what's the latest and greatest, does it work, and do you have it?!

Wait a while before going Vista. Never count on a new release when your business swings on it. I'd say wait until at least the first service pack.

Different controls handle comp in corners in different ways. I've been looking for a better way to do that for a long time. I also want to be able to have the cutter lead in, do several step downs (or ramp down), one step over, two or three skim passes, and then lead out. I usually have to use the toolpath editor to get what I want, or change the code after posting.

I sometimes have multiple parts in the same file, on different levels. With X's unlimited levels there's plenty of room for solid model, surface, and wireframe toolpath geometry for several parts all on different levels. Maybe increment by 100 levels per part to leave plenty of room. Then you can also have multiple toolpath operation groups, with their own program numbers and nci names. Program the first one, then copy the ops to a second group and change what needs to be changed.

I've noticed what appears to be a pattern with this. It seems to happen when I have contour toolpaths that have inside corners too small for the tool to go all the way into. The more such toolpaths I have, the more zero length arc messages pop up when entering verify. It's annoying, but doesn't seem to cause any harm. Putting a fillet just larger than the tool radius in those corners seems to prevent the error message, and reduces chatter as well.

Does anyone here know a good way to combine or merge two STL files? I'm programming to mill six sides of a part on a horizontal. The first setup will get three sides, and then the part will be flipped to get the other three. I saved an STL of the stock without vice or tombstone after verifying the first setup, and have STL-Transformed it to the proper position and orientation for the second setup. Now I want to include the tombstone and vice again for verification. I know I could import the STL, remodel the partially machined part as a solid and add it to a copy of the vice and tombstone, but there should be a better way. Thanks, -Matt X MR2

I'd also say boost your RAM. 1gb seems a little small for what you're doing.

Seems to work fine, except that I can't get it to register color 0 - black.

#2 + more RAM.

I occasionally run two or more sessions, but I've been avoiding it since whatever session I'm not working on at the moment tends to lose track of its NCI data. Then I have to save, reload, and regenerate toolpaths and it's okay. So now I mostly run two sessions only if one of them won't have toolpaths. I'm dual monitor, single CPU, 2GB RAM, WinXP Pro 64bit.

Even if you get a post set up that will move the probe and get your touches, there are things that your CMM software should be doing that you will not be able to (reasonably) do with your post, like rotating your coordinate system to accurately align with the part, setting new coordinate systems based on part features, and virtual or construction features like intersections, virtual cylinders etc. If your parts are dimensioned simply then it might work, but if there's complicated GD&T forget it. IMHO.

Gcode is right. I've got an AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (2412MHz) with 2GB RAM, and an Nvidia Quadro FX 540 video card (a step or two cheaper than his FX 1300). Some of my files get to 130Mb or so, with some fairly complicated solids, and I rarely have to wait. Dynamic rotate is as smooth as can be, even with the chord height set to .0002. The video card has two outputs, one digital and one analog, and will support both at once for dual screen. The computer was around $1200 about 6 months ago, and the screens (2x Samsung SyncMaster 204T) were about $450 each.

Each time you download a new Beta it resets the 60 days, so it's effectively free until it's out of Beta. Still, it's a lot easier to get the boss to spend $75 than $20k.

I've been playing with it some more, and it's working great. It also simulates Macro B! Turns out it's not quite freeware, it's free during the development process, and for 60 days after. Then it's a whopping $75/seat.

Vericut is too expensive for us so we have Metacut, which works okay unless you have subroutines. I've been searching for a good way to check my subs (without asking the boss to spend money) for quite some time, and now I've found a free program that does it. It's called NCPlot, get it here: www.ncplot.com. Make sure you get the V2 Beta, not the V1.0. I haven't messed with it much yet, but I loaded up a program with nested subs and it showed me a pretty picture that looks right. -Matt

DavidB's screen moving thing looks really wierd to me. I've never seen anything quite like it. If you notice the window control buttons in the upper right corner, thay're saying that the window is maximized. It looks like some kind of screen wrap. The lower right corner of his screen shows the left edge of the start button, above which are what appear to be desktop icon titles that should probably be against the left edge of the screen. My question would be what video card, driver version, and dual monitor settings are used? I'm doing dual monitor, and I have mine set to span. If I maximize it will be across both screens. Just as a test I switched to "dual view" and tried opening a file. It didn't move anything.

I like both ideas. Optional word wrap, and undockable. I'd undock it and put in on my right-hand monitor (Mcam main on left). When I'm analyzing I often put the analyze window on the second monitor so that it doesn't get in the way of picking more geometry. I'd also like Ops and Solids to each be their own "toolbar" rather than two tabs of the same one, and if they're undockable I could have them side by side on the other monitor. Roger, see if you can talk Brian into getting you a second screen, or dig up a spare. After using two screens you'll never want to go back to one. More is better! You can have Mcam on one, and be answering your tech support emails on the other, without having to flip between windows. It also can't be beat for post editing, where you have Mcam, your .pst, an .nc or two, and possibly post reference material, and you want to look at them all at the same time. -Matt

I've had the "dirty" operations thing. I'm guessing it's because I haven't bothered giving my programs an NC filename untill I post them, so they're all "C:Program Files (x86)mcamxMILLNCMachine_Group_1.TXT". I figure this makes them all use the same NCI filename, so any temp files would get confused.

One comment regarding the shading of physically large models: Pay attention to your shading settings. When I'm working on small parts I'll set the chord height to .0002 or smaller in order to see the details clearly. Standard parts I leave it at .002. For very large parts, you'll probably want to set it to .02 (or .2, depending on scale). Setting chord height to a larger number will really ease the workload for your video card. -Matt Hajicek AMD64 4000+ Nvidia Quadro FX 540 2GB PC3200 XP Pro 64 Dual 1800 x 1200 Displays

As far as I can recall X has only crashed on me once, and that was pretty early on before various updates. Though I still have some issues with the interface, I do think it's a significant improvement overall. I'm anxiously awaiting that MR2. -Matt

P.S.: "You just cannot put out a single interface and shove it down everyones throat." Isn't that what they're doing with X? No amount of (presently allowed) customization will make the X interface work like I would like it to.

"everyone uses it differently for different things." One person may use a screwdriver for turning screws, another as a prybar, and another as a scraper, or a punch, or... The handle (user interface) should still provide a comfortable yet firm grip. I'm not against allowing cusomization, I'm against *requiring* customization. The maintainance fees don't bug me. I don't pay them, the company does. What bugs me is not being able to do my job as efficiently as I might.

I guess you're right that the question wasn't worth resurecting the thread, but in attempting to impliment the answer I believe I've come across something that is. **** Warning: Interface rant **** [begin rant] It would make the most sense for "color" to be assigned to ctrl-C or alt-C, but those are already in use for c-hooks and copy. My next choice would be ctrl-O or alt-O, but those are origin select and operations manager toggle. I could put it on L, but I might want to reserve that for two (only two, out of five possible?) methods of line creation. The problem is that these hotkeys are not context sensitive, they are always active. The v9 method allowed unlimited functions, vX has a theoretical maximum of 2 X the number of characters on the keyboard but many of those are not useful. In addition, their organization is not congruent with the thought process of the human mind. A computer can remember each item in a lookup table no matter how it's organized. The human mind works far better if things are categorized. I would like to see someone try to set a hotkey for every function available in Mastercam X, and then see if they can remember even half of them. I've been using X exclusively for a couple of months now, and trying to be patient and change myself to match the software. I'm keystroking around the menu starting with the alt key, but I hate it. Why should I have to hit alt before doing anything? What purpose does it serve? The old interface was one of the main things that made me prefer Mastercam over all of the other software. It was industrial software, designed to get the job done quickly and efficiently. Every function was only a few keystrokes away. Making things easier for the beginner often makes them more difficult for the expert. Now keep in mind that this isn't a rant against Mcam X as a whole, just this iconophyllic interface. I'm liking the features, just not the method of getting to them. One simple change would make me much happier: Don't make me have to press the alt key to get into the menus. I know it's "windows standard interface", but most windows programs are designed for some sort of text manipulation. In that case alt means "I'm done entering text, now I want to enter a command." In Mcam, entering text is the exception, and the software already knows when those exceptions are. Entering commands should be the default mode, making the alt press unneeded. In addition, I don't like this business of requiring significant customisation in order to achieve efficient use. This means that if I sit down in front of someone elses McamX I won't know the interface. Worse than not having it do what I want it to do, it will do things that I don't want it to do since those keys may have been assigned to some other function. [end rant]