I have had odd stuff happen with files sometimes. Try to start a new file with some fresh ops and see what it does. If it does the same thing something is funky, if it doesn't then there is something up with the nci or some mach sim ghost file related to the file you have already been working with. May be worth looking into dumping the machsim temp files.

I am trying to verify that your programmed part origin is at world 0.

I have experienced the same thing. Are you changing the origin location away from 0,0,0 in the mastercam file by chance? That is a no-no with mach sim.

Sounds like people felt their jobs were threatened by common sense and a little intelligence.

I would have had him fired for changing my program.

I find machine default settings to be very helpful in the tool change macro. I have always programmed with the assumption that you can't make any assumptions on modal codes. Therefore, I almost always set things up in the post to cancel anything that might apply at every tool change, and set every required modal code on startup of each tool. I don't recall this ever being a feature, but never tried, I would imagine once you start a drill cycle it won't let you change. That aside, you rarely have a need to switch from ipr to ipm without doing a tool change first....

Anything to continue hitting the easy button. I have been in situations before where I was hired to fix the culture. Example, make this part run through without operator intervention. They told me I had the keys to the kingdom to do whatever needed doing. Next thing I know I am getting complaints from the operators management that the machine is throwing chips into the operator station (which shouldn't be occupied, but is by a certain lazy operator who claims he has to be there) At this point the process was 50% faster and could just about make it through 4-5 parts without making adjustments (entire shift). They ended up going back to the old method until I could figure out how to control the chips. The unfortunate reality was the old process was just as bad as mine, I just threw more slightly hotter chips in a shorter amount of time... The only good thing that came of it was they fired the operator when he refused to work after it was proven there was no need for him at the operator station other than selecting the program and pressing cycle smash.

I think most true programmers are willing to use pitch. It's the operators deciding they don't like G95 aspect of it that is frustrating.

Too funny. Why people fight pitch for tapping is so far beyond my comprehension I just cease to care.

Interesting. Here you go... Well they aren't zero, so in theory that shouldn't be the cause. I think someone at Enshu USA needs to get a hold of whoever is in charge of the controls department at Enshu Japan, they should be able to get this solved in about 30 minutes tops. I think that if it was back channeled this way it would get resolved quickly, worst case they use their contacts at Fanuc Japan to get a deeper answer. They may need a full control SRAM backup to look into it though.

Syncing is a topic I would like to learn a lot more about. I have had to figure it out a few times, and have had mixed results. There probably isn't a magic explanation for it, but I am sure something would help lots of us.

That's a question that is in the generic post. I don't know what causes it to come up, but every now and then I get it. I am fairly sure it is tripped on the start of file with g- code 11 and it is starting at a singularity. If you put a value in the misc int it will populate this initial value. As soon as you tilt any the primary angle is going to settle in on the closest value.

Also a custom post could do this all day long if there was a setting to pick C shortest distance solution, while allowing A to go wherever it needs to.

Thinking about it, I have never been able to get my head head post to do this, but I can get my head table post to do it, but it is always a mile away from a singularity as a singularity would equal a crash 99.9% of the time... As gcode said, Can you mount the part on an angle plate or something and attack it at tipped say a minimum of 15 degrees (A needs to be tipped more than 14 if you want a lead angle of 7 without passing through table vertical singularity).

Post a sample file. We are flying blind. Depending on the post, there is a decent chance are you can get it to do what you want, but you will have to make sure not to contour through the singularity. I am guessing you just want it to tilt back and forth from A-7 to A7 during the linking moves? I don't know if the generic 5 ax post can be forced to work this, but I think it can. Post a sample file, simplified geo if need be, I think we can get what you need.

Increase the along cut, the best you will get is splitting the move into two segments. But that will drop the NCI size from 800k to 11k.

Chuck! Nice sheet!

If you watch that video a little closer it is moving the y to stay to maintain the centerline of the profile as well. The closest thing to what you are thinking for a two axis would be rope threading function on an Okuma.

you can set rotary offsets in G54, but you have to be careful of parameter settings as to whether g68.2 and g43.4 will "compensate" for those changes or not. IIRC there are two ways that it can interpret those differences in the yellow book.

Agreed, but I can't tell you how often it would have been nice to align some UV curves to help in making a runoff extension or some such surface feature with curvature continuity.

The only feature I could use every day would be the rotate/align UV line feature. At least I think it was mold plus that gives you the ability to do that. Seems UV curves just aren't consistent from surface to surface on most of our parts.

Your surface has an imperfection at the spot I am assuming it is gouging. You will need to recreate the surface without the "fold" in it.

Hey I still have X6 on my machine, but in all fairness, I went from X6 straight to 2017. We weren't current on maintenance for a while.

Way to just post up asking how to do your job.... On a serious note, have fun machining that thing. I hope you can take some liberties on some of those features. It would sure be a waste of time and money to machine it exact to the model. When engineers ask for prototypes of a casting, they should be requesting V-Process castings, not make from solid versions of the castings. If they do want a make from solid, they should simplify the design for machining by removing fillets, radii, and draft wherever possible. If you aren't familiar with V-Process casting, it is a good alternative casting method suitable for short run protoypes, and it can get great results. What makes it short run compatible, is the fact that the pattern tooling is typically cheaper as it can be made from soft materials (think renboard or even softer foam) and still have a relatively long life, as well as the fact that the design criteria are a little more forgiving than typical sand casting methods.

If you get used to those functions, the side bar is actually pretty handy. All surfaces and all wireframe are the handy ones I use frequently. Though of course I don't use keyboard shortcuts much.