No problem, glad I could help...

Have you checked to see if the post blocks for the previous cycles changed the format for the feed variable? The line would probably be something like result = newfs( ## ,feed) where the ## would be a number representing a format statement in your post that would format the variable to one place after the decimal. A quick fix could be to change the format at the top of your threading post block with the above statement substituting the ## for the format you want, then revert it to what it was at the bottom. Just some food for thought. BTW, I am by no means an expert... I just know enough to be dangerous from working on our posts. Also, don't forget to back up your post prior to editing. YMMV Rick

Thanks Paul, I hadn't thought of making 2 files. I was thinking along the line of using buffer files,one to store tools, and another to store operations, then combining them at the end into the output I wanted. 2 files seems much simpler. I think I'll pursue that path as time allows. A second perspective is so helpful at times... Thanks again, Rick

Paul, You wouldn't have one that would produce a simple list with tools in order by tool # followed by operations in operation sequence by any chance? I have often thought of trying to get the mill.set to do that but couldn't figure out how to get the post to loop through twice - once to get the tool list and a second time to get operations. The output I was looking for is something like: T#1 tool 1 description T#2 tool 2 description OP#1 Operation1 Description OP#2 Operation2 Description Where the descriptions would be the entered comments from my toolpaths. Right now I do a lot of copy/paste or just re-entering the descriptions in our setup sheets. If you don't know of anything like that, could you point me in the right direction? Thanks - and I hope I didn't hijack this thread... Rick

From MMS Online (IPT)(D/2) --------------- SQR(((D)(DOC))-DOC^2) Where IPT = desired chip thickness D = Diameter of cutting insert DOC = Depth of cut We have this setup in a spreadsheet and use it all the time for machining with button inserted tools. Hope this helps Rick

I believe you can download the Vr.9 Post processor reference guide from cadcam's FTP (see link at top) It's in the "MCX Post Stuff" directory and is called "Version 9 MP Post.zip" It is a valuable tool when first starting post modification. One little recommendation, make sure to make a backup of the post file before you make your edits. That way you can always go back to where you were. Minor changes are pretty easy once you start to get a feel of how the post works. If you aren't sure what is going on where, simply add an output line in the postblock you are working on to see if it shows up where you think it should. A line like "here", e$ came in pretty handy. Reference the forum and ask questions. The guys here are very helpful and many of them have been through what you are doing. Good luck

I haven't seen errors like that unless the result from my equation would be a value that was invalid. Like a negative feed rate or something. What field were you trying your math in and what were you entering that gave the error?

I've noticed that too, just never brought it up here. I often change the settings to a cylinder and place it in a certain location to verify. Sometimes it gets so annoying having to change the settings each time that I just create a stock solid to verify to. Then I can verify to a solid with stock and the finished solid to confirm no baddies are happening. I have to agree though it would be nice to see the settings stay put once you set them.

Trust me, I wasn't criticizing your spelling. Just pokin' a little fun. If I had a dollar for every word I've misspelled or typo I've made, I could retire early. Rick

The FX4600 is what I have in my Desktop & it works quite well. If I read your post right malibu, you are asking about a "loptop" card? Not sure what works well in a laptop. You might look through the benchmark thread. I know there were several laptops listed there. Rick

I am using it to copy the screen image without the background color using mastercam's copy screen image to clipboard function. That way I can select what I want copied instead of the whole screen like the x+ camera icon would do. I use copied images in the procedure files I type up for the shop floor. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words... or so I've been told Rick

6:02 HP xw8400 Workstation Xeon 5160 @ 3Ghz 4Gb Ram 80G 10K RPM WD Raptor SATA HD NVIDEA Quadro FX 4600 Dual View 20.1" LCD's 90% Toolpath RAM Allocation Display surface/plane intersections: OFF

Thanks Gunther!!

If you mean CSS, then yes. Even though the control I made the post for is a mill control on a lathe and doesn't support CSS, I use that value in the post to calculate the spindle RPM at the diameter of the first cut.

Bump: Can anyone steer me in the right direction? TIA, Rick

quote: Reminds me of people's hesitancy to migrate to Windows 3.1 from DOS. James, don't forget the wonderful Windows 286, Windows 2.1, Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions that all came out prior to Windows 3.1. I worked for a computer store back in the day and sold every one of those packages. Of course back then, they weren't the OS, they all ran under DOS. I think back then, people didn't see the need to go into a graphic based OS. Many Linux folks are still that way. (Even some Mastercam folks to some degree) They loved their keyboard shortcuts and hated the Idea of a mouse and clicking on menu's. They hated loading a graphic file manager. ... I remember people asking "Why would I need that when I can just use x-copy or DOS commands." I must admit it took me a while to let go of my comfort zone and all the DOS shortcuts I had learned. I also think that is what much of the "I'm sticking with an outdated OS" crowd is having problems with as well. Most of us work better where we are comfortable. How many people stuck with using V9 over X even though it was being praised by some just because of the comfort? I won't let myself get into that rut again. While I do agree with a company's OS on their computers, it is a good idea to wait until the first service pack is out and many of the major flaws fixed prior to moving into a new OS, I would not agree to sticking with an OS that will be going by the wayside in a few years. Run with the bulls or get crushed. Rick

Ok, I just checked a file in X MR2 and it is goofy too. If my feed is set in fpr I get odd numbers if I change it to ipm, the times seem correct. I'm assuming something in the post is doing this. Am I correct?? I didn't realize the post would affect backplot numbers.

What would cause the estimated time to be out of whack. I'm running X2 MR2 Lathe. The post is a custom post I have been working on. The times seemed to come out somewhat normal in X MR2. The calculated rapd time seems correct, however the feed time is way off and then the total is less than the rapid + feed times? See the picture below. Note the distance travelled in feed and rapid vs. the times. Could my post do this? The machine Definition? I have the feedrates set in the general machine parameters of the machine definition. I'm not sure where to look exactly as I don't know what would have changed between X MR2 and X2 MR2. TIA, Rick

Rumor from the other thread is lots of Lathe enhancements!!

We have printed copies of the TNC guide for our machines. And I agree, from what I read, it will always make that cleanup and return to center. Henk, in your above statement, you suggested not changing the helical milling to allow for larger than 360 degree angles because of the 5400 degree limitation. Was there a problem with this other than adding the logic to determine how many 5400 degree passes to make and how many degrees for the last pass to achieve full depth? Just curious. I could see this as a future project for myself as it could greatly shorten the length of some of the programs we generate.

Is there any way with that cycle to get it to make a helix to full depth without the cleanup pass and return to center at each helix depth?

I've never tried cycle 208 on any of our machines. Reading about it however in the manual, it looks as if it makes a helix, a cleanup pass, returns to center, and repeats the process until it gets to depth. Is that correct? All our machines are running right now so I can't test run the cycle to see it in motion. I fully understand where fredrik_r1 is coming from. We do a lot of helical milling here and the program length can become quite long. Which wouldn't be a major problem but when the programs get to a certain length, some of our machines pause ever so slightly between lines. Which can cause chatter at the 360 degree point of the the helix on each pass. To be able to have the machine make it's 15 passes per line would be nice. If cycle 208 makes a cleanup pass and returns to center on every pass that would seem to waste a lot of time compared to making a direct helix to depth. Again, The above statement is soley based on what I read in the book. If cycle 208 will helix directly to the bottom, I will look at adding this to our posts as well. Rick

quote: Roger Martin from CNC Software Said: Rick, Please re-read my previous posting. quote: It is currently being updated Whoops , Roger, I missed that statement completely.. Glad to hear it's in the works. quote: Crazy^Millman Said: rdshear I have them all printed a great reference I have printed several key areas that I found I was using frequently. Maybe someday I'll print the whole thing. I just hate to tie up the printer that long.

Are they sending you a CD with the PDF's? Or are they printing it out and seding you a printed version? I started to print the files out because I like printed documentation. However, some of the volumes are VERY large and I gave up on that pretty quickly. I hope I didn't get my reseller in trouble.... Unless they sent a bill to my company I wasn't aware of.

I don't think there is any cost. All I had to do was request it from our reseller and they burned me a copy on cd.