Yes, I get this problem also. I am thinking that most people won't have this problem, because they don't save tools or libraries. Anyhow, I have found no real fix for it that always works permanently. If you save out text and then create a new library from text, it will work for a while and may even fix it for good. The problem is that, when you create a library from text, it adds unwanted spaces before the tool name, mfg tool code and chuck fields. I think they know about this issue as several of us have submitted. I am thinking it will be fixed at some point in future versions. Mike

Hello David, I appreciate the info! Thanks, Mike

I think it is a combination of the tolerance and gap settings. It sounds like you need to change the gap setting to "follow surfaces" before anything else. Mike

Hello Mr Wizzard, It would be a good idea to try an experiment on a small area. You are now running a .001 tol and .0005 stepover. It could be getting mixed up because your tol is greater than the stepover. Just a guess as I never tried this type of thing. As peon mentioned above, the tolerance should be much smaller than you are running. .020 is a very small tool and since the stepovers are so small, I am thinking that your tolerance should be something like .00015. I always recommend starting with a scallop height calculation before anything else. I am not sure of your requirement, but it seems like you need somewhere in the range of .00004-.00012. IMO, anything less than this is just rubbing the tool and wasting time. There are many scallop height calculators on the web, but you can always just start a "Dummy" parallel cut, input your values and get an answer. You don't even have to select any surfs. A stepover of .0005 calculates to a .000003 scallop height. I would try a stepover of about .0022, which calcs to a .000061 scallop height. In summary, try a test at: .00015 tol .0022 step Indicate cutter to .0002 max Mike

You can DNC on just about anything. Those two controls especially as they are/were very popular. You may have to make a special cable etc. I am not a pro at it, but I have heard of many people that did it. The easy way is to call someone who does it, like Cimco. I did a large Impeller on an old Makino with an 11M. My customer called Cimco and they set him up fast and cheap. Mike

Roger, The X being reversed is actually fairly common. Do a search and you will find the info you need to modify the post. Ooh..let me guess. It's a job shop. Ah, might want to get that fixed. It's one of those "when it happens" not "if it happens" things. edit:/ I would call Cimco Mike

I am having the same problem as Neurosis. I just sent QC the tooldb library that I boasted about above "it was working" as it does not work anymore. It will not hold data in the data fields of Bull, Flat and Ball ems for XY step, finish amount etc. I am stumped.

Thanks gcode

I get the same problem on both of the boxes here in the office that are running XP Pro sp3(fully updated). I just sent the issue to QC. You may want to send it in also so we get a fix at some point.

Great News. Thanks Dave.

I tested the "Adjust Feed on Arc move" function on two different machines. It seems to be broken as it will sometimes or always omit the adjusted feedrates. I submitted this issue to QC and will post up with results when I hear. MIke

I believe that this function is broken in X5. I am planning to install X5 on another box today so as to confirm. I will post up info. Thanks

Hello everybody, I am having some inconsistent results with the "adjust feed on arc move" function in X5. It will omit the adjusted arc feeds sometimes or always. I need to work on it some more, but at this point it seems to be random. Every other MC version has worked perfect for me. Has anyone else seen this? Thanks in advance

I am running the 600 and it runs good. It is more powerful than the FX1400 it replaced. I hope to upgrade to a 2000 one day.

I have also gotten this issue several times. It was off by about .05 shallow. No depth cuts were used. I can't find any pattern to it, it just happens.

Neurosis, I have all the same issues as you all are mentioning. The only way for me to get usability, is to use the *.tooldb format. It takes just a few minutes to convert to *.tooldb. It would be a good idea to send a link of this thread to them. I will also report it later. Mike

I changed to the *.tooldb format and it works again. edit: It added spaces in front of all my tool comments though.

Hello gcode, I am the administrator with full permissions. Further, this is an intermittent problem which makes it tough to troubleshoot. I wish I could fix this... Are you using the *.tools-5 or the *.tooldb format? Thanks for the tips!

Hello Neurosis, Did you every find a way to correct this issue? I have had problems with X5 tool libraries from the beginning. Sometimes you can't delete a tool(todays problem), can't write tools etc. I just tried to compress the offending library and it now appears to be corrupted as all of the tools disappeared. When I first went to X5, the major problem was trying to add tools to a library. I then converted this library to a *.tooldb and it has worked for the time being. I am trying to gain info so that I can submit a report to QC. edit: I usually build a new library from text to correct issues like this. Thanks

Acronis TI works very well. I schedule it to make a full backup once a week, overwriting it everytime. I also schedule another task to do an incremental backup in a separate directory once a day. Both of these are written to a dedicated internal backup drive. I also do off-site backups every 3-5 weeks using external drives. I am a contractor, so most of my work is emailed as a deliverable. If I lost everything due to a theft or fire, it still wouldn't be that bad. Mike

Hello Dodgerfan, Look in the "\shared mcamx5" folder. From the X5 top menu: File > Open Shared Folder. Mike

It's the NC Precision setting. I always run .00001 instead of .0001. This way you won't get all of the unexpected linearization. This is an issue that goes way back. You can do a few searchs if you want. Mike

If I post out using the file as is, my nc file sizes are the same as what gcode got.

By the way, this file is a good example of the NC precision setting(located in CD) issue that I posted up a while back. If I use a standard post with the NC precision setting set to .0001, it will have the linearization issue that is mentioned several times above. This has been an issue for many versions now in Mastercam. I just use an NC precision setting of .00001 and don't have this issue anymore. I have had this problem in X2, X4 and X5. I feel that CNC knows about it already as there have been a few posts on it. It would be a good idea to send it in again though. Thanks

Hopefully I am not missing something, but everything looks 100% normal to me. Sure, the posted out NCI file and NC file are slightly different in size, but percentage wise, not much considering we have two versions of Mastercam and most likely slightly different toolpath algorithms. My guess is that if you studied it in detail, the X5 toolpath would be a bit more optimized. This would account for the extra size. This is just a guess though. I am not sure why you have the cut tolerance and filter tolerance the same? Maybe this was just for the test or I missed it in the above posts. I changed the filter to .002 total / 2:1 I then posted out both files with a known good mpmaster based post, I get 81kb for X4 and 84kb for X5. I would adjust my settings as required and make chips. Mike