The fadal requires a larger move in Z to cut a helical arc move, I usually set it to .001" minimum. The real problem is that the fadal will mill a straight line from the start of the arc to the end of the arc if a helical arc move does not have enough Z travel (the .0001" you identified). Most machines will either ignore the small move or give you an arc error. What version is the mpmaster post you are using? You can set the "mimimum change in arc plane for helix" in the control definition to .001". this should fix the issue.

The 2d HST toolpath chaining convention is a little tricky. And your not the only one who thinks we should be able to designate chains at "stock" or "outer profile" or "etc..." to make it easier/faster/more intuitive. Send your request in to [email protected] While once you understand the logic it is easy to get it to do what you want, but many times it REQUIRES that you creat NEW geometry. This effectively makes working directly off a solid impossible for toolpaths requiring these chaining methods. Which also means using change recognition is more difficult, etc... And your comment about it "mostly being worth the time spent" is the worst part. Dynamic mill is a wonderful toolpath that has many benefits. But if it's difficult to use, it simply won't be used as much as it could/should be. JM2C

The largest (area) chain is what will be machined, any other chains (smaller) will be avoided.

Sorry for the late response, but as Todd said it is included at no extra charge with X4. There are nesting softwares, but the only ones I know of are going to be many, many times the update price to get up to date on maintenance with X4.

X4 has true shape nesting built in, just update.

There is no reason to intialize yes$ and no$ as they are predefined variables, just pound them out.

Does it spin the opposite direction in australia?

I see six people answered "other" for the last question, but no explanations. if you answered other I'd like to know what you mean. Thank you,

Exactly, Solidworks has a nice layout whenever you hit file new.

Thank you for voting, good info. I wanted to post this because there are softwares that integrate template files into the interface, solidworks for example. I think most everyone could benefit from template files if they were aware of them, and had some documentation to help get them going. I've help setup template files for customers that saves them an amazing amount of time. I've sent this in as an enhancement request.

Start simple, it doesn't take much to be a time saver. For example, VMC with a 4th axis, EVERY file requires me to create a view for the bottom and back planes so the X+ direction is correct? A big deal, no. But using a template file that contains those views saves me time on every job. Throw in a standard levels manager layout, and a few tools that always stay in the machine and pretty soon you have yourself a very functional template file that saves time on nearly every file. One of the things I didn't bring up in the original post, mostly because you cannot import them, is viewsheets. Viewsheets, while not perfect, offer some real time saving features. a Template file can contain predefined viewsheets, all you would need to do is bookmark them. I'm not saying template files are for everyone, or every situation, but start small and most everyone will benefit.

Nothing special, just a mcx file. Just as you are doing.

In an effort to work smarter (or I'm a little lazy) I've been using template files in Mastercam since V5.5. The reason for template files are numerous but basically, Template files = faster and easier. If you are not familiar with a template file, basically you open an existing mcx file that contains commonly used toolpaths, tooling, levels, views, geometry, etc... then merge your part geometry in to the existing file. A few reason to use template files: 1. prenamed/predefined level list. It's a lot faster and easier on every file if you have a consistent set of levels in every file, this is a HUGE timesaver. 2. organized operations manager with group/subgroup names setup for this family of parts. Example if you have 4 vises you can have a toolpath group for each vise, subgroups for roughing, finishing, drilling, etc... 3. you can also have the common toolpaths used for this family of parts including tooling, feeds/speeds, stepovers, etc... ready to go in the correct toolpath groups refrencing the correct WCS, just add geometry 4. predefined associative views that can be edited for; multiple vises, indexer work, tombstone work, etc... For example, if you work with 4 vises you can have four predefined views where all you have to do is set the origin . 5. your template file can also contain geometry. your custom print borders for all the standard size papers you use, just turn a level on. Again if you use 4 vises you could have the vises already setup to accept your merged in geometry. little things like G54, G55, G56 notes created in the iso cplane ready to be used for setup sheets. etc... 6. tooling, in addition to the common toolpaths you can have all the tooling predefined in your mcx file with the correct feeds and speeds defined for this style of part/material. 7. there are many other scenarios like for router customers with a drill block, you can have a template file for when you have different drills loaded into your drill block. 8. All of this adds up to consistency, organization, and minimizing the time wasting things you do on every job. vote and give feedback! Thank you,

I agree, different terminology could be used. And, I am not saying that there is not room for improvement, again you talked about a dialog to edit an existing view, and this has been brought up in the past by others including myself. In the current version of Mastercam the two line method works, is not a workaround, and is extremely simple to edit a view. In the future, if/when there is a dialog to edit a view, then yes the current two line method would be a workaround. what is the difference if you use a rotate/translate command in an edit plane dialog, or use a rotate/translate command to move some geometry, the result is the same. The geometry isn't extra if it is required to have an editable WCS.

Here's one section from the help file: Rotate WCS Lets you create a new view by rotating the current view about any or all of the axes by a specified number of degrees. Mastercam displays the New View dialog box so that you can name the view and save it to the view catalog. Click here to learn more.

O.K. Ron since you brought up the help file, can you post a little text from the help file where it says to use the rotate WCS method to edit an existing WCS? I may be wrong but my guess it will only say to use rotate WCS to create a NEW WCS relative to the current WCS.

I think the real misconception here is that the "two line" method is a workaround, which is simply not true. Having a view associative to geometry allows you to edit that view, there is no other reason to have a view associative to geometry. This is the way I have done it since V9 came out with the WCS view manager.

I'm going to train people the easier, most consistant, most reliable, easily editable, and most functional way of creating editable views. If this requires a couple of extra clicks, so be it. If your process is to use the "two line" or "gnomon" method, it is simply that, the process. Then the views are easy editable by using xform dynamic to move the geometry that was used to create the view. Again, rotate view is broken and does not work the way it used to. Dave, the enhancement request I was referring to was in regard to a "solidworksesque" dialog for creating/manipulating views as was brought up earlier in the thread. This is something I have advocated in the past and would be a big help for people new to manipulating views.

Again, I don't doubt you have a bug. All bugs should be reported and fixed. The process I use always works. I've never had an issue, period. I'm really not trying to argue, and I'm not saying the process of rotating a view is incorrect. I'm just saying if you want to edit an existing view the tools and processes are already there. They always work. it's as simple as using xform dynamic to edit an existing WCS/tplane/cplane.

Dave your only issue seems to be you don't want to have "extra" geometry. Well don't think of it as extra geometry, think of it as neccesary geometry to build your WCS's. problem solved. Certainly if you would like to see an enhancement send it in. but there is a current way of doing what you want without any issues.

Dave you said you wanted to edit an existing WCS, this is easily done.

I get that rotate view doesn't work like it did. To be honest I've never been comfortable with that process as I've had issues with it in the past, probably V9 and X. Not to mention you the name has to match the existing view exactly or it doesn't work.That is when I strarted to stricktly do what I do now with the merged in gnomon, then I can manipulate the geometry without any issues. Not to mention it is much easier to manipulate using all of the xform functions. Regards,

Just to clarify: 1. create a new view by geometry, pick two lines X+ then Y+ 2. if you xform (rotate, translate, dynamic) to "MOVE" the geometry the view will follow the geometry and have a new orientation and/or origin. You will NOT have any duplicate views, you will NOT need to edit common parameters to pick a new view, simply regenerate the dirty operations.

Dave, Don't be so arrogant to assume that the way you do things is the only way people work. There are many ways to program parts, not to mention different kinds of machines. If I rotate my model to sit in Mastercam the way it is sitting on the machine (HMC for example), then I want all my views to follow the model. If I am programming multiple setups then yes, I would want to control them independently. It just depends on what you are doing. Ron, I am talking about using geometry to create an associative view, then rotating the geometry. I get what you are saying about rotate view

WOW! this is just silly. You have the ability to edit existing Work coordinate systems, period. That is the whole point of having associative views. What is the difference if you open a dialog and rotate 180, or rotate some geometry 180? 1. If you want your view to be tied to your model, select geometry of the model, then when you rotate the model your view updates. 2. If you want to be able to control the view independent of the model, use the method I described earlier to place a gnomon via xform dynamic. A separate dialog would be nice, especially for beginners, as long as we don't lose the ability to be associative.