Are we talking concentricity of a bolt head counterbore here? If so then +1 to Kathy...+1 to kathy anyway...Unless you're creating concentric bores that have a moving part in them, i.e. Valve spool bores then your CNC should be far more than accurate enough to produce an adequate concentricity of the two bores...

yes sir... 2 is the number of combinations of each bit, which can be either a one or a zero....fifteen is the number of bits that mc is using....I'm curious why there isn't a 16th bit though? is it reserved for something else?

2^15 does mean exponents...or in laymans terms 2*2*2.....fifteen times....

quote: Does anything run "WELL" on ME ? I dont think even a mouse runs well on ME.... and I definately agree on going with the NT based kernel in either win 2k pro or win XP...

i've used the gear program to generate teeth on many occasions....my suggestion is not to use anything less than 20 arcs per tooth if you plan on toolpathing the teeth....I"ve wired several gears this way and have been fairly happy with the results, using less often leads to a series of linear movements that you can visually see and not the greatest quality of gear. It sure would be nice if some genius would be figure out how to solve the involute function.... If you're only looking for a visual representation then 6 should be more than fine and save you a whole lot of regeration time. Question for you. I've never seen depth of cut as a method of defining a gear. Is this simply the (majorØ - minorØ)? If so thats a new one to me... Just another hint...the tab key between fields doesn't help you much with this c-hook....wont' recalculate the other variables....use the enter key....took me a while and about three monitors out the window to figure that one out.....

:sad:.. I am a guy like that....... oops...that proof reading thing always gets me

:sad:.. I work am a guy like that.......

acad....(older versions) doesn't have the correlation between the dimesions and the part...so many desiners thought it a much easier tast to change the dimension text rather than modify the part....ie...my vote is for laziness...

my .02... I'd be much happier to see a cad standard that included tolerancing rather than this program. I harldy know an engineer that can design a working part, much less one that knows how to machine it too. But my real question is how much longer will it be before prints become a thing of the past? Now I not only like to have a model to make a part, but I still require a print. When will it be all one component?

quote: Some folks just don't like new things! What would give you that Idea? I'm with the group that believes updating far outweighs the time it takes to learn a new gui....using the windows api should not only make things easier for new users (having windows experience)...but might make things a little easier to find....and hence faster in the long run..... Also with a little bit of skill in the programming the windows api can be just as customizable as a dos based interface.... I guess it all comes down to how motivated the mastercam programmers are....

same goes from iges from Ideas....both the IGES and STEP translations from native SDRC don't work well...I've even tried all the flavors....I've yet to have a problem with a parasolid translation out of SDRC though...

Here's something a not so wise man once told me: Find a hobby that you can make money at, quit your job when your hobby starts to make more than your job and do that, then find a new hobby... Personally, I plan on winning the lottery then doing nothing but flyfishing for the rest of my life....just gotta convince the lottery board to fund my retirement...

Believe it or not yes....we indicate them while in the spindle. The operator then (Lightly) taps the tool itself with a rubber rift or small mallet to true up the reamer. Slightly costly when he chips and edge and ruins the tool, although that happens on very rare occasions. The reamers I'm talking about are not standard sized reamers....they're more like custom made form tools, typically having three or four different diameters to them. Our supplier holds them within tenths of the print we give him and we usually order them toward the low on the print to accomidate some runout. We previously drilled, bored, and burnished each hole seperately. However this method works well for us, actually much better than the previous. I'm just looking for a way to cut down on the time required to setup the job. Our house is strictly prototype so we're not knocking down a production line, but every minute the spindle's not turning is in my opinion costing us money.

thanks for the info all....We typically use custom made core drills and reamers (carbide) for putting ports into valve bodies. We can knock what would normally take 8 tools or more down to three....and we get far better results with concentricity and surface finish as opposed to multiple tools. Our only issue with them to date is on a hole with a tolerance of ±0.0003 (not uncommon in a prototype valve body)...a couple tenths runout in the tool eats it up completely...so currently we put the tool in a standard collet and indicate them in individually (pretty time consuming, especially if the tool doesn't seat properly). It would be nice to find a holder that would give me repeatably good runout on the tool. Of course it always takes a little extra convincing of the boss to show that the ends justifies the means...

another question...without sticking my neck out for sales calls any idea on the appoximate cost of the equipment, specifically the induction heater...

Has anyone had experience using induction heated tool holders? We're looking for a better way than our standard tool holders for holding step reamers. Currently we have to spend the time indicating all the tools and tapping them to reduce the runout. We've also tried using the expandable holders (grease filled) but can't get good runout on the tool.

are you changing the settings on the windows driver or just the preview settings in mastercam?

I have used the UG converter with great sucess importing into mastercam. It works excellent on the solid models...but only on the solid models.... I try and avoid non-native UG exports for our customers if at all possible. I deal with about 40 different engineers when trying to get prints and most have little or no experience with other forms of data....the native UG has worked best for us so far. Thanks for the info on the other programs....I will definately check them out. Kevin

Does anyone know of a UG viewer or converter that can read native UG drawing files? My customer has become accustomed to sending me the drawing files which would make our lives a lot easier if we could read them. The UG converter won't read the two dimensional data. Any help would be greatly appreciated

My company does all the "rough" machining for all the New Dodge blocks. Its funny you ask about mastercam as we programmed it in a 1978 text based software that still runs on a windows 3.1 system. We'd not had Mastercam installed yet. However, I'm slowly but surely phasing out all the old software. My money's on Marlin this year, but I think the #8 car, and all the DEI cars for that matter are going to place well..

the plot function doesn't give the option of shading a part....kinda retarded in my opinion but hey who am I to say...if you need a shaded plot you can go to the hardcopy command under the file, next menu....this will allow you to print a shaded copy of whats on your screen.....we use these screen shots for quoting puposes but I find that if you don't have the part rotated properly you'll get whited out portions due to the computer imitating lighting effects.....to which I'm sure you can make adjustments in the shade menu but I just haven't had the time to fool around with it....

Thanks for the help. We weren't able to get a STEP to translate exactly, but the parasolid worked perfect.

Has anyone had any experience with step exports from native SDRC. A customer of mine (part of the big three, can you guess who) is exporting a step file from Ideas for our use. SDRC gives several ouput types (called flavors for the step export). I'm having problems trying to create the solid on the import. We are continually getting surfaces that don't mate properly. Has anyone have any ideas short of having them export the file in each format?

I'm not really sure wether or not they are currently offering it. Might have just been a newbie salesman at the company or my brain not functioning properly while talking to the guy. But, regardless our reseller is Axsys Inc. in Michigan. you can find all their info on their webpage at www.axsysinc.com

ok...well I answered my own question on this one....and rest assured it felt good to prove him wrong...thanks anyway all