Even with the mention of people bailing, or maybe not quite bailing, there's still no word from CNC Software on this. We ALL know that they visit this forum. There's no question about it. Why can't they come out and tell us what they think? Because they are embarassed? I'd be willing to bet. Admiting that they made mistakes is too hard for them. It's easier to delete the thread and hope that it goes away. I was brought up to think that hiding from a problem I caused was cowardly. Anybody from CNC software care to comment? Where's X? If it's going to be in our mailboxes "sooner than we think", why not tell us when? What makes this freakin' thing such a secret? WHERE ARE YOU GUYS? It's your software, your customer base, and your 'official' forum isn't it? Your customers are getting pissed and you are standing by to watch everything go to hell. If things go bad for you, you deserve it. Paul

My Mistake

quote: Not cool Paul. You oblviously just slammed beta testers. What police are you reffering too?? I didn't really mean to slam beta testers, but it seems that everybody that's defensive (pro Mastercam) is a Beta tester. It's a statistical thing...sorry for streotyping. I wanted to beta test too, but I missed it because I was switching jobs as the program was launching. I would almost certainly be biased in favor of CNC software as well if I poured my sweat and tears into it. It's normal...don't take it personal. I'm refering to the police who pull messages from this forum when they don't exactly make Mastercam look good. Who does that? That's who i call police. I remember one post in particular a couple months ago. It was a lot like this one. Usually the threads get closed, and I can understand that. Hiding it is another thing. Paul

Last time we had a thread like this, it disappeared. Watch this one go too. No matter what, a lot of people are upset. Should they be? Who knows. Does that matter? Yes. Any company that has a significant portion of their customers upset...for ANY reason is doing something wrong. It's not really a mystery. There are still issues with 9 that aren't, and won't be fixed. For most of us, "sooner than you think" doesn't mean much. I already gave up waiting for it and am looking at an alternative to Mastercam. As a matter of fact, I know I'll get flamed as I always do, but I know of a company with about 8 mill seats and close to that many lathe seats that is bailing next month. Can't blame them at all. What's CNC Softwares next BIG move? Anybody notice the lull in forum activity over the past few months? I would love to see what was said in a forum that wasn't infected by CNC software kiss-xxxx (beta testers) and police. Anybody in their right mind would say that the past two years have been a huge slap in the face from Mastercam to all their customers. I stood by them for most of the time, but enough is enough. What does your reseller say when you talk to them on the phone about this? One on one, you hear the real news...that they think this is bull too. I've spoken to two. And their SUPPOSED to back up CNC sofware. As a matter of fact, I'd like to hear Pro Mastercam feedback from someone other than a beta tester, reseller, or CNC software employee. Kind of like trying to win a prize from a radio station...if your affiliated, you can't play. You're biased...you don't count. Paul

I agree about it being used for 'approximately'. I use it all the time in communication, emails, etc., but I can't imagine putting it on a print. Could mean different things to different people. I'd like to see this dimension 1.0025 +/- ~.0003. Now that would be nice. Paul

Thanks for the link. That's exactly what I am looking for. I'm going to contact them now. Paul

I got it too. I'm sure most of you know this, but for those of you who don't... Do not reply to the email or you are basically verifying that your email address is valid. You will be more apt to get flooded with junk if you do. Some of us here probably have the abillity to work with the header information in the email to possibly track down the source and if nothing else, complain to the access provider. Here is the header information if it's any use... Return-Path: Received: from inbound-mx6.atl.registeredsite.com ([64.224.219.94]) by imta04a2.registeredsite.com with ESMTP id <20050616084342.MXCK22272.imta04a2.registeredsite.com@inbound-mx6.atl.registeredsite.com> for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:43:42 -0400 Received: from eltel.net (mail.homelink.ru [81.9.33.123]) by inbound-mx6.atl.registeredsite.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5G8gqjT019198 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:42:53 GMT Received: from [217.170.93.152] (account [email protected] HELO gaga) by eltel.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.9) with ESMTP id 33859786 for Paul's Email Address Removed By Bullines; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:38:56 +0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:42:45 +0400 From: =?Windows-1251?B?wOvl6vHl6Q==?= X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.01) Reply-To: =?Windows-1251?B?wOvl6vHl6Q==?= X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <[email protected]> To: Paul's Email Address Removed By Bullines Subject: Mastercam Art MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Paul [ 06-16-2005, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Bullines ]

Thanks guys. The hole popping would be no problem, but it will not work for a finished hole because it's not accurate enough. At least I don't believe it is. Wire EDM would be fine, but can you accurately wire a .014 hole? We have a Makino wire EDM and I couldn't even thread that size hole. We've done them in the past simply with drills. If you find the right size/style drill, they drill very accurately because they're so small. The problem is it takes forever. Maybe it's supposed to take forever? We spend 30hrs on 96 holes. I guess I was hoping that somebody out there specialized in tiny holes by some nonstandard method. Thanks Paul

I model the drill diameter including tip angle going to full depth, then I have the tap diameter with no tip angle going to the depth I want the hole tapped to. Thats how the hole wizard in solidworks does it too. When you see a hole like that in a model, you know without question that its a tapped hole. That being said, your company should address this problem. I'll bet YOU took the heat for the mistake right? Paul

Anybody out there able to put 96 small holes (.014 +/-.0003) through .100 thick P-20? Location needs to be as good as diameter. I have two blocks that need to be done, but the second block has holes ~.028 diameter...not so bad. Paul

I would have expected plastic or rubber to melt with a laser. I'll look into it. Paul

Thanks guys. I'll check out some of these places. I appreciate it. Paul

Hi, I'm looking for a source for what I think would be a good waterjet job. I have 36 .020" thick rubber gaskets I need to produce in a hurry. They're about 6" x 1.5" and have some odd shaped holes/notches in them. It's something I could picture punching out with a steel rule die, but I don't have time to have one made. Anybody do anything like this? These gaskets are 3 sets of 12. I wouls imagine sandwiching them together would allow them all to be cut in 3 setups. If anybody is interested, I have prints and geometry (sldprt/slddrw) files available. Email me and I'll send them along. Thanks, Paul McGarr

What does it do if you put in a feed of 1.0? This might narrow down your problem. Sounds like it might be a format statement thing in the post processor. Paul

I don't think there's an easy way to do it. I could be wrong though. One thing you can do is to modify your post to not use canned cycles and then edit the spindle speed between holes manually using some sort of creative search and replace. Your file will be huge though. Not the best option, but maybe a dirty way out of a bind. I believe it's a switch in most posts called "use canned cycles". Don't forget to set it back to yes when you're done. Hopefully theres a better way. Paul

For whatever reason, checking simple file sharing removes the ability for me to access permissions entirely. Right click menu and properties. When I uncheck simple file sharing, I still don't get the option in the right click menu, but I can access permissions by going to properties-security. It's possible something is wrong with my system, but I can't imagine what. For what I need, I am all set now. It's pretty rare that I need to mess with permissions, but when I do, I need to be able to acces them. Using properties-security is fine for me. Seems like another indirect issue with XP SP2. I had Windows firewall problems after installing SP2 as well. Thanks again for all the help. Paul

Ok, I'm wrong, disabling simple file sharing did work. It doesn't give me the "sharing and security" choice from the right click menu, but I do get the security tab under properties of a folder or file. That's perfectly fine for me. Thanks a bunch guys. Paul

I disabled simple file sharing, and that didn't work. Can anybody verify that I should be able to do what I am trying to do? Simply put, I want to right click on a network folder and see "sharing and security" in the menu. It's possible that I have never been able to do this, but I really think I have. Paul

Thad, Sharing is not the problem, it's the lack of the ability to set permissions on network files and folders. Thanks though. Paul

Craig, Yes, I have admin server priviledges with the same usernam and pass as I use to log on to my local machine. Just to see if something had changed, I sat AT the server and logged on using the same credentials as I would if I were sitting at my desk. Connect using a different name really shouldn't help in this case. Paul

I'm confused about something, I am at a workstation running Windows XP SP2 and when I right click on mapped network drives and/or subfolders of those drives, I don't get the "sharing and security" choice that I get when I click on a local folder. I am logged on locally using the same name and password as I do when I sit at the server. I have admin priveledges both locally and at the server. Shouldn't I be able to modify pile and folder permissions on the server from the workstation? I thought I was always able to do this. The local pc is windows XP SP2 and the server is windows server 2003. This is not a domain type network, just peer to peer for file sharing only. Anybody know if I should be able to do this? Thanks, Paul

Lee, I was thinking that at first, but the geometry being created here is really not a big deal. My impression was more like "what's the best way" more than it was "how". Actually I look at the first post and see that he DOES want to know how. The plus to your way is I believe you can do that in solids right away. The bad thing is that he'd need to do more calculations to get to the finished product. It's another example of the many ways to skin the cat with Mastercam. I was actually hoping I was missing something because it's such a basic shape. It's a great question really. Paul

Nope. Surfaces only. Paul

Hmm. Know what would be nice? A taper option on Solids-Sweep! I was thinking that maybe sweeping the 1/2" diameter, then using Solids-NextMenu-DraftFace might do the trick, but I don't think so. After trying that, I agree...coons/surface to solid. Paul

Wouldn't two small nc files, one that works, and one that doesn't, be all that we would need to figure out the problem? Post a short file with a 3/8 flat, then the same with a 3/8 bull then paste the code here so we can look at it. It has to be in the NC code right? I don't understand how this can be so difficult. Paul