superman, after using a copied plane method, i still got the same results. so i placed a call to cnc. talked to a tech who informed me that this is a known bug and will be fixed for X4 due out in the summer. thanks for your help fellas.

superman. the way you describe wcs is the way i understand it too. was the alternate plane method self taught or did you learn it from a training class? i'm going to go ahead and do it that way for a while and see what happens. what gets me is, this issue did not exist in X2. i drafted the same way in X2 and the construction plane stayed put. in X3, it is definitely moving. i opened a session with a default config file and still had the same thing happen. then i tried this out on another seat in the shop and it happened there too. so it's not something in the config or something with my install. jack neelands tried it out on his system and the construction plane didn't change. are you using supermans method jack? i'd be interested to hear how other people are using wcs as it applies to this discussion.

on it's way, Jack. Thanks.

if the dimensions are below the geometry, you won't see them when you print it off. which is part of the problem here. if i don't realize the construction depth has changed, then print, i end up with a bad print and have to do it over. i have just always used .1. no other particular reason. even if i do realize the depth has changed, i have to re-establish it before continuing and always have to be on guard for it changing. pita. i'm going to give the 3d draft a try. maybe that will solve some of this.

Superman, if i get you right, you are suggesting some kind of workaround. While i am forced to use workarounds a lot anyways, this problem has only begun for me in X3. it worked fine in X2 as i posted previously. I appreciate the suggestion and may even have to use it at some point, but i have a hard time settling for workarounds. If you have to make copies of all the planes you use, what's the point of having wcs. Sorry, i'm just frustrated with features that worked better in older versions. shouldn't they work better in newer versions?

thanks for your help, i wasn't around for a few days, so sorry for not getting back to you sooner. view manager reads as follows: C T D boxes are all selected for the FRONT PLANE as you get when you click the '=' icon. Origin Coordinates: X 0.0 Y 0.0 Z -0.6657 only box checked is 'associative'. in graphics window, 2D construction depth is set to .1000. Begin drafting. 2D construction depth says -.5657, drafting entities are located at .1000. Finish drafting, click green check mark. construction depth does not return to .1000, view manager has not changed. I restored X2 and did the same exact step by step process. In X2,when i click the green check mark to finalize and exit drafting, the construction depth returns to .1000. This is where X3 is leaving the construction depth at whatever. as i was doing this so i could describe it accurately, after the first 2 times, it didn't change again until i repeated the draft, line, draft thing a couple of times. so it is not doing the same thing every single time, but almost.

yes, c and t planes equal wcs in view manager for all files. thanks.

c'mon people now, smile on your brother...???

hello. hello. hello. is there anybody out there? just blog if you can hear me. maybe mr. waters was just having trouble with mastercam.

fyi gcode not network libraries here.

when i set the construction depth at .1000 and start dimensioning, i notice the construction depth changes to -.2983 but the drafting entites are still put at .1000 i guess this makes sense at some level because everything is obviously related to absolute zero. but when i'm done drafting the construction depth stays at the -.2983 level instead of returning to .1000. this ends up causing problems, because if i need to do additional drafting and don't re-establish the .1000 depth, the dimensions end up at -.2983 (which is absolute -6966 and now displayed as the construction depth). and if i continue again the new displayed depth will be -1.0949 and so on. i don't have any previous X versions installed to check this on, but i wasn't running into this before now. is there a drafting parameter affecting this? maybe i set something differently in MU1 somehow? my wcs origin is Z-.39829.

i've had similar problems which i posted about earlier. gcode's answer seems pretty close to me. it's like the ops manager has logic problems now that it didn't have before, and it's related to the machine manager. something else i have noticed for a few versions is sometimes when you try to select an operation, you can keep clicking on it but it won't select it until you click on something else first and then go back and select it. or when you redefine geometry in a contour path, after the chaining dialog box disappears, you are automatically unselected on that operation. my instincive move is to click regenerate as soon as the box disappears, but you get the message that no operation has been selected. so you have to go back and select the operation you were already working in. it's not a big problem, but it doesen't seem to be functioning properly.

quite right john. my mistake. so do these customers refuse to translate now because mastercam can read natives? and what is the difference that you know of? other than the history tree. just curious.

quote: Sorry but that's just plain wrong for the majority of us that read in CAD Data from other systems. If we don't stay on top of new installs, we're in BIG trouble. i don't understand this because i read cad files from both pro and solidworks too. and i can still read them in just as good in v9 as i can in x3. if your'e referring to the solidworks history tree that you can use now, that is a very nice feature. but you don't need 3 downgrades a year to keep it. my hypothetical point(and just my opinion) is, that a lot of software companies including at least some of those providers you named, would not enjoy anywhere near the same level of revenue if they shipped a clean product. even just one time. not when a huge portion of income comes from maintenance. because even though as you point out, some customers would still want to keep up with the newest v's, a lot of us probably wouldn't see the need. (just look at all the users here on this forum who go back to an old v that they feel works better.) and they know that when the customer looks for ways to cut costs, a maintenance fee for something that already works would be one of the first things to go.

not that i do, but if i paid someone to cut my lawn, and they would miss spots, then come back later to fix it, and get those spots but miss other different spots and charge me a fee to keep coming back and keep fixing the spots they missed and keep missing others... well, you probably get the idea.

that's probably right gcode. it's a toss up between doesen't know/ doesen't want to.

i hope 'they' take serious notice of posts like this. when the griping gets this loud on a blog used primarily by loyal users who usually defend them, it should be a wake up call to the provider. but i'm not holding my breath. after upgrading to the latest can of worms, i'm thinking somebody is fat and happy with the way things are going. the way i see it, is if i had a clean product(try not to laugh too hard), one that simply worked. wow. just how much need for maintenance would there actually be? or at least, would i pay as much for services that wouldn't be as needed? not as much and no. the way things are, i can't afford not to have it, the problems are big enough and numerous enough, i have to eat the cost. would a clean program mean no maintenance? probably not. with a sophisticated product that has a lot of bells and whistles, your'e going to have some issues. perhaps with installation. and obviously some need of technical assistance because we are all not born computer geeks who just get it the first time. but how much would it be worth? if i have a clean version, i won't want to be constantly upgrading and dealing with all of the disruption that comes with it, even if it had a couple new toys. i can get by for a year or two. i will also expect to pay a lot less for a maintenance contract that's only required to solve minor issues. it's just an inherant fact that if you have a lot of problems, you will pay more so they can be fixed. the thing is here, they never really get fixed. it's a neverending cycle. to some extent accepted by 'us'. you just can't ignore aaallllll the problems, aaalllll the time. only some of which are being brought up here(because a lot of people will just put up and not complain). at first, i naivelly thought the intent of a new version was to remove problems and enhance. this just hasn't proved to be true. while the enhancement side of things may be decent, the getting rid of problems part sucks. while some bugs do go away, there's always a crapload of new ones to take their place. sorry, but that's a failure. +1000 here for first and foremost getting it right. then and only then, make a new one if you want to.

quote: SolidWorks also has a function caled Co-ordinate system. They have no effect on the model is SolidWorks, but when you Save As (X_B,X_T,STEP,IGES or STL) you can use the co-ordinate system to define the model's landing in M.astercam i thought there must be something like this. one of our designers uses this feature on every part. sucks for me because if i have any need to check the part out in the mold configuration, i have to xform it all over the place to get it back where it should have been in the first place. i can't save it there either, because if something changes on the part and he re-issues it, it comes back in the wrong place. so i have asked him numerous times not to do this, but he adamantly refuses to change his m.o. what an aho. just a rant, but otherwise some great discussion here of the wcs.

try creating a construction surface, then create dynamic curves using the supplied geometry as a reference. then delete what you don't need.

locally. it doesen't seem to have anything to do with the server at this time anyhow. thanks. a few more notes on this. it does seem that mc eventually resolves to a stable file, even though that may take a few saves and then deleting all the empty groups it has created. the older the version, the worse the issues seem. that may just be my perception though.

in general the problem i am having is that when using a previous mc version file, a few different problems are occuring. so i may not be able to narrow this question down to one thing initially, but i am hoping for some discussion here. i couldn't find anything close with the searches, so here goes. in one instance, an x2 file opens fine. first off, i use the ops manager to replace the machine def even though it appears to be correct. then after doing some work, i do a save as. then opening the same file, a popup window prompting me to rename the toolpath group appears and once i escape it, the original toolpath name is put as the machine group name and the toolpath name defaults to 'toolpath group 1'. it's as if i don't have something set up right on exit and mc loses associations for the next time i open. in another example, the file loses the tools and i have to re-assign them to the toolpaths. there are a few other variations happening but maybe you get the gist of it. i used the import directory to update the 'cnc machines' folder among others when installing mcx3 and mu1, and i have also used import directory to open these earlier version files of mc, but it doesen't seem to matter how i open them. i have problems either way. are we supposed to open every single previous version file by 'import directory' anyway? that seems wrong. anyway, if anyone has a suggestion, i would appreciate the help. thanks.

perhaps you already did this but make sure your selections in 'operations manager properties files tool settings' are the way you want them.

I'm bumping this for the sake of finding out if others are still getting it or if they think the problem went away. Sent an email to support at mastercam, but the tech say's he can't get it to happen, end of email. As for me, I'm still having the same issues.

thanks tony. I know it's kind of lame, but the truth is, 1. we haven't used any macro programming here before, and 2. the operator is newish and a 9.5 on a 'scared to try something different' scale. As for the boss's comment, he is right in this case anyway. because by the time we (who haven't used them before) write the macro, get scaredy cat used to the idea, deal with his drama, and run the parts, we would not have saved any time. this is most likely the only time we would run this particular job, even though learning a new method may pay dividends in the future. however,on a much happier note, when i expressed my opinion on not letting ourselves get trapped in our stale ways, i was not fired on the spot.

i guess wer'e not going to try a macro. boss's thought is, for only one job it's not worth it. thanks all for your input.