Hello Gunther, We really appreciate it! Thank you

Yes, I agree with gcode, look in the book under drill cycles and see if they list a parameter. This may be a wierd OiM thing. Ultimately, fixing the machine would be nicest, this way you won't have to modify posts forever. Thanks,

Hello Rstewart, I believe that if you start the drill cycle at Z3.00 and you are G98, the machine will definitely retract back to Z3.00. This would be on a standard Fanuc based controller. What type of machine/control? Thanks

The Z stops at Z3.00 on N55, since the drill cycle is in G98, the Z should return to the Initial plane of Z3.00 before index. This is providing that this is a standard Fanuc/Haas type of control. Am I missing something? Thanks

Yes, I believe it was X5 or X4 that is worked last. I switched to Active Reports for this main reason. I appreciate the help. Thanks

Hello Master Mason, I am wanting to use X+ instead of Active Reports for a specific application. Thanks Hello Thad, Yes, I believe I recall that this is how is used to work several versions ago...or maybe still does depending..? I can't make this work in X7 or X8 using the method that you describe though. Does it work in your newer versions of software (X7, X8)? Thanks

Hello everyone, re: X+ How to make tool list of a tool library or just tools not attached to ops. Many years ago, I used to be able to make a tool list of library tools or tools within my part file that were not attached to ops. I can't recall, but maybe it was during X2-X4..? Anyhow, does anyone know how I can do it now, like X7 or X8? By the way, I know Active reports does this, but I would like to use X+ for certain applications. I am most likely just missing how to do this...? Thanks in advance

Hey David, Go out into the shop!

I agree, stock models aren't fully supported due to size etc. If you have a very complex part and must have many stock models for finish operations, they can not reside in the file. So...We need/should be able to have a normal STL export function. I have been able to get by so far, but I think that's because I haven't programmed a very large and nasty part yet. I have done parts in X6 and prior that I don't think that X7 could do without screwing around. Also, this really starts to use up space on networks. edit:/ I use stock models mainly for rest roughing. The problem is high resolution finishing.

Hello Ron, Please submit this to QC. I have this issue myself and also submitted it. I don't think they will correct this issue anytime soon unless they get more feedback as I believe that there are only a few of us who require STL's. I consider this a bug/severe limitation since it is totally unusable like it is. Changing the tolerance will help, but not enough to fix it. Something is wrong with the engine. As you mentioned, this is a first, all other past versions have been fine. Please send them a link to this thread also. It may be good to wait a few days to see if anyone else responds to this thread. Thanks

The image looks like an arc reversal or similar. I have had this issue one time with an HST path(not Hybrid) and also junked out a very expensive part. We were lucky and it was welded. I worked on this issue for quite a while at a customers facility and found that someone had just recently changed the IJK arc setting in the post (CD) to break at 90. This was a perfect proven post before the edit. Once is was changed back to break at 180, the issue was gone. Machine: newer Mori NH8000 HMC post: 2008 ish mpmaster MC version: X6 mu2 I checked the code in Predator VCNC and NCPlot and it looked perfect in both softwares. The path was inches off at the machine. I have never seen this issue except this one time. I would do as suggested, and use a newer post. I am thinking that a high-end package like Vericut could find something like this, but I do not own it. Thanks,

Hello Ron, Ooh..I am doing ok, just trying to figure out how to make money...you know. Other than that, things are very nice over here in Carson City. I just want to fish, hunt and ride dirt bikes as much as possible I hope all goes well with you also. Thanks,

Hello newbeeee, Have a look at an MSC line called "Shank Type Cutters". Go to the site and get to page 506 of the Big Book. You can also search for 00608729 (Ø1" x 1/8" width x 4-15/16 OAL). They are HSS or HSCO, 8tth and also staggered. They work very well, especially in aluminum as they are built with some nice geometry. MIke

I think that Joe is 100% correct. Just duplicate the holder and go. I just worry about migration as I have large programs. I would guess that CNC will allow for this though?

AKA - Catch 22

Hello Joe, Yes! I agree with you. But what if tool holders don't migrate properly to the new holder system that may be coming at some point? This would be a disaster for me. Thanks

Hello Joe788, Yes, this is work around and I can see how this would work as the software is getting confused when using the same holder on more than one tool. The issue is that I am making large programs with many tools. Many of the tools are used more than once. The part file must also be able to migrate through future versions of Mastercam. It's a toss up. Deal with the holder issue and the possibility of an error, or use a Custom Tool which will work without fail. I think it depends....? Thank you for your info. Mike

IMO, Tool Holders are unusable at this point. The only solution I have found, is to go back to Custom Tools. I have wasted so much time on Tool Holders...I feel stupid! The Tool Holder should be in/on the Tool Definition. It's as simple as that. We should be able to select a holder and then forget about it. Mike

Hello Brendan, I am sorry, my mistake(bad memory). As mentioned above, I believe that you must trim the surface or follow up with project contour for the walls. As you know, this is a hassle. I just did some testing on the following, and here is what I have found. In order to cut this geometry directly(no surface trimming/building), your main choices are: 1)Surface Finish Constant Scallop, 2)Surface High Speed(Scallop) and for nice zig zag patterns, 3)2D NCI project(pocket zig-zag) and 4)Surface Finish Blend. For what you are doing, it looks like the Surface Finish Blend or Surface Finish Project(2D pocket) would be best. For Surface Finish Blend, simply create two lines near the walls. They should be located a tool radius away from the wall. Along 2D should be fine, as all you need is a 2D project(please also test 3D). For Surface Project, create a 2D pocket zig-zag at zero depth, turn the posting off(Ghost it). After that, create a Surface Finish Project operation. Select NCI and pick your pocket op in the source op window. let us know how it works, Thanks

Hello Brendan2340, I would use a containment boundary instead of the vertical check surfaces. edit:/ Whoops, That won't always do what you want. I believe that this is just how Parallel works. I think that most people would either trim the surface or follow up with a surface project. You could also use another toolpath.

I have never had luck copying ops between Machine Groups. A work around is to use import. Just hit save, and then import the op from the same file. It should work fine.

I have also seen this issue, but only in X6. The op will accept a feedrate change and not go dirty. Mighty Dangerous. Mike

Hello Aeroguy, I am wondering if you are using tool holders. X5 MU1 and earlier versions worked well for me until I started using tool holders in X5 MU1. When using tool holders on a fairly busy job, it would sometimes get confused and scramble my t#'s as you are explaining. I believe that there are more people here with the issue as I have seen other posts on this. Because of this issue and the fact that the tool holder is not defined in the tool def as it should be, I feel that it is just safer to use custom tools in X5 MU1. I have not tried tool holders in X6 yet, so I am not sure if this issue has been corrected. Thanks,

I think that the older mpmaster posts had to be done as Tinhman indicates. I am not sure when this was changed, but it was a while ago. Thanks

There is a line in the pwrtt$ postblock that you can remove the comment from. This has fixed the issue for me From: #sav_rot_on_x = rot_on_x #Uncomment this line to output rotary axis value even when it's not used To: sav_rot_on_x = rot_on_x #Uncomment this line to output rotary axis value even when it's not used Mike