If the thread is "THAT" hard, I would expect it to fail in use....brittle, AF?

Aaron's idea of wire insert is best IMHO.

Otherwise....could you 'gram an external thread (1/2-20) above your part. Have the Z start position come down to a known clear position (say +0.100).

Then feed hold and stop spindle and zero your control. Then wind in a piece of studding, and in handwheel mode move and eye up the threadmill to the stud.

Then alter your TLO to be the new Z position.

Now 'gram your 1/4-20 thread with the same parameters you just used (without removing part, same start position and TLO etc). I think that's the best you could hope for?

As it's a custom built machine - it's probably a configuration issue with a parameter?

I'd check 1022 initially, and then the 5001 etc settings?

1 hour ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

Putting on the big hat and cowboy boots with spurs is just part of our daily routine over here   You wouldn't understand...

 

Oh I do and I'm so jealous  

Deep South and a Mustang would do me fine!

27 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

I was thinking about this a bit more, and I realized I forgot the most important part that no one has talked about:

Managing up.

Obviously you'll have your work cut out for you getting all the grumpy guys who have been "doing it this way" "forever," but the biggest thing I see that hurts programming departments (well, really, any sort of mental/creative work departments) is unclear expectations from management.  Make sure that they understand that this isn't going to be a lightswitch.   You're not going from the wild west to civilization overnight.

Assume that if the guys have been doing it this way for the past 20 years (including you), it takes a while to turn the ship around and get everyone to accept that the new structure actually does make things a lot better in the long run.  And be prepared to let one or two of them go if they can't get their act together and work with the team after some time.  Bob Wolcott has outlined some great thoughts on this on here throughout the years.

You will be responsible for understanding management's viewpoint (i.e., $$$).  This is a capital investment.  It's like building a custom machine for your shop.  It's going to take potentially tens of thousands of dollars for each component of it and each part is useless until it's basically complete.

A guy paid $100k/yr (company pays a total of $150k/yr after benefits) has to work on building a comprehensive tool library for a big shop, that's a potentially a 4 week project.  That means that the company is going to be paying $12,500 in salary for that library.  And it's functionally useless until he's done.  He's also not programming while he's doing it.  The mean's the entire shop is losing that productivity (each employee should make at least 3x what their salary is to keep things sustainable), so that means the company is now $37,500 behind because you guys get a tool library.    Imagine if you paid $37,500 for a tool, and mistakes that tool could solve keep being made on the shop floor?  That's how management should be thinking about it if screw ups keep happening because someone isn't following the new paradigm.

I would outline a rough roadmap of your goals and plans with management, and make sure they understand that it will take real time from knowledgeable programmers that they will not be doing production programming, because they're going to be focusing on (make a list of) managing tool libraries/ops libraries/configurations/whatever else.  Negotiate how much of the programmers' time you're allowed to devote to implementing the new libraries or whatever.  

You need to be a project manager now, not a programmer.   It's a real full-time job for a reason.   Take that list of what you're going to deliver to the company.  Break each component out as a line item.  Try to ballpark how long it will take in man-hours.   Now add that up.  I'll bet you end up with darn-near a full year of man hours.     This is now the hardest part of the job.   Is Johnny boy actually working properly on the tool library?  Is Jimmy properly using the new tool library, or is still randomly defining tools because "it's faster?"  Does he need more training?  Does something need to be changed to be easier to use?  Are you communicating milestones and progress correctly in a way your management understands?  Do you have any metrics you can look at about how your improvements are helping your turn around time/job reliability/tool life & management improvements/down-time reduction/etc.?

Good luck, you're now stuck in the middle.  The dreaded Middle Manager!

On top of this superb post, which underlines the fact that putting on the managers hat and big-spurred cowboy boots, is, the easy bit it would be worth discussing this with the accounts dept or "someone who knows" if any project investments and cost-kickbacks, are available? 

Because if you launch this out as a proper structured project, and time sheet it and cost it as a proper project, you may be eligible for the project cost to be written off against the company taxes. Which means it possibly won't cost anywhere near as much money, Aaron laid out. In the EU, there's free money thrown everywhere for things like this (training).... 

22 hours ago, Bill Craven said:

At another shop, I  implemented saving Mastercam feature operations as seperate Mastercam files that were used as example files that had worked well and saved to a special library on the server.  Similar to maintaining operation libraries.  But this was easier for the programmers to review and then incorporate into their new programs.

 

This!

IME, usually shops tend to specialise in a "type of work"....so when something different appears, it can be a head scratcher. Once it is 'grammed, save a copy of the part  (or more specifically the toolpaths used) naming the part "Multi-part Transform Rotate" (or whatever) - but something that you can easily find again in the future within the "examples directory".

I also have a notepad file of unusual tools - predominantly long and specials with all the (working) info and stickout speeds and feeds DOC's mtl etc. Only because our tool library wasn't as good as it should have been....

11 hours ago, cncappsjames said:

I still use Pfe32 for Post Processor editing.

And CIMCO Editor and Notepad.

Old. As. Dirt.

Just checked (memory) X Editor is what I was using before hand....even copied that into the X7 directory and used it for then too.

I used the default xspurt for 9 onwards though....

Have a shortcut on your desktop (/mastercam/extensions/codeexpert) and open it 1st thing in the morn.

Once it is open, any new posting (did) opens(?) virtually immediately. Then just close down that posted prog, keeping codeex-spurt open....?

I remember being LoL'd at when I asked the benefit of code expert (why it was written)  when it was introduced in the Beta days....because the historic editor worked so fast and well. And it still had more features at the time (IDK now).

But I was told "the historic editor was (at the time) 15 years old written in (can't remember the language now) and the new is blah blah C+++++++++++++++++ or whatever)"....

I remember at the time saying I didn't care what language it was written in, but it was a backward step....

To add to the excellent advice.... i'll add "standardisation of doing things".

That's from dealing with Customers (incoming) electronic data (Network folder by Customer>Part Number AND ISSUE) etc, to the way they  use Mcam and the way they 'gram.

Everyone does things differently - but as already pointed out - mandate same posts, tool library, file creation (level naming etc) etc - is VERY important.

Big white board of who is working on what project so everyone knows what's on the go and dates etc.

Then their workflow - such as firstly ORDER ANY SPECIAL CUTTERS FIRST SO YOU'RE NOT WAITING DUMASS  , prog, verify and file compare, run X+ to check datums + coolant etc, Post, run posted code through backplotter or Vericut or ?etc, then create setup sheet, fixture drawing etc etc so you're handing over something with confidence - a basic flow sheet of your agreed process for all to see WITH EVERYONE's buy-in is good IMHO.

And when people cut corners, you gotta pull them up.

LoL @ "world class" though   

8 hours ago, Leon82 said:

DX or DO rating

AOG is to make short lead times

gravy is jobes that make lots of money and are esy

Yes thanks for telling me what I already knew LoL

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

For all I know it could have been some xxxx he made up but I don't think so since I recall him explaining it in enough detail to tell me what every letter meant but it's been at least 8 years since that happened. sorry to send you all on a wild goose chase.

He's prolly describing what happens if they pulled your work...the company would be FUBAR 

AOG (Aircraft on Ground)?

Or perhaps "GRAVY"....

1 hour ago, Jobnt said:

This is prolly going to sound really stupid (because it sounded stupid in my head), how do I run this? I've only ever run VBS and CHooks. Never NetHooks. 

If you're Dumb, I'm your Dumber

On 7/6/2023 at 6:35 PM, Jobnt said:

He's chasing tail in Cuba right now. Will hit him up when he gets back. 

I remember him saying something about VBScript going byebye in Mastercam. I wonder if now might be a good time to toss out the old and busted and learn teh new hotness. 

New hotness - you talkin 'bout tail chasin in Cuba?

On 7/6/2023 at 7:15 PM, #Rekd™ said:

Oh to be young and foolish again!!!!!

Old n foolish is where it's at!

18 hours ago, cruzila said:

I mentioned in another thread that allowing levels to be "active" meaning visible AND selectable vs. non-active meaning visible but NOT selectable would have real beneficial use.  Then there were jokes about CAD functions yadda yadda 

I'll say again, there is a use for this function.

As agreed in the X7 Beta days....

I guess I was lucky with my place, because I could standardise right at the start of day 1.

So 4x identical 850x VMC machines, all with 10k spindles and same pullstuds, grid plates on the table dowelled with the same XY (grid shifted), all with the same Bison 6" vices, and jaws milled with steps in for holding stock (no parallels for 90% jobs). Also rotarys were doweled and datums in the progs.

The 3x 15k drill/taps all setup the same.

And the 2x siemens lathes identical so the same spindle liners, VDI tooling, programs etc would run in either. Same chucks and collet heads so bored jaws would even run between the machines.

It's a bit of work to get to that, but it makes life easy(er).

Ultimately - should you be employing someone to sit and read through a printed our prog and figure out how to get a job going? Certainly my Customers wouldn't want to have paid for that 

Take this with a pinch of salt - as my primary hands-on experience is a majority of pristmatic-type electrical enclosures, and their associated internals on 4ax VM'c and Hori.
Parts with <150ops 'gramming - and the vast majority 2x machining ops only (for the 6x faces).
Disclaimer over....

With todays pressures and skill levels etc, IMHO a (clean) tool list is best fit for the majority of applications.
Showing:-
Machine type/number
Prog Number
Part number and Issue
T#, H#, D#, Tool description, Holder type and tool stickout
Mtl size
Datum setup 
Vice end stop position and parallels if used for OP1
Fixture number
Any other comments with perhaps a photo showing setup

And if operator is in any doubt, they can watch through mcam's verify before setting, to see "what it does".
Not forgetting "If in doubt - ASK"!

All the additional info I see on some generated set sheets detailing each OP#, operation types, tool speed and feed, cut depths etc etc is all surplus noise and wouldn't get looked at.
That's all within the prog the 'grammer has set, so it should be safe and reliable (based on known info).
When I was Eng mgr at a previous place, the QM for years, had dictated that all jobs were run with a paper printout of the prog so the operator could see what the machine would be doing
A total, unnecessarily, waste of paper and someone printing it, as obviously no one ever looked at it.
Too much info....

:shrug: 

10 minutes ago, cruzila said:

Now, can we have levels visible but NOT selectable?? Or is that just too much?

:hijack off:

Back in the day (X7) there was another enhancement request high up the pole, for making levels similar to Autocad - ie you can lock them with no edit, to stop accidental moving or deletion....

30 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

Oh. Hahahaha. I see now. That's a dia, symbol, not zero (as in datum).

I'll sit down and shut up now. At least on this topic.

IDK....You maybe right....we need a setup sheet which also details what machine it's going on

26 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

He covered that first...

 

Where's the setup sheet? I thought he was referring to tool dia, tool length, and tool number  

5 minutes ago, SuperHoneyBadger said:

Yep. That's absolutely the reasoning behind our simple sheets.

Get the Ø right, get the length right, get the tool number right. That's all I ask of you, Mr. Operator.

Waddabout Datums?

16 minutes ago, neurosis said:

I don't know what's out there anymore having been stuck on MC for the last 15 years.    How many CAM systems have a 1 click easy setup sheet button that doesn't require paying for or learning how to tailor it to your liking? 

 

TS has a pretty nice setup sheet but required a LOT of work to get it to look how you wanted. Even then, it wasn't one click. You still had some work to do.

Dunno. But it's been in mcam since 2009....

And if it was "one click", that would be a great selling point over any other system that wasn't?

42 minutes ago, neurosis said:

 

I actually don't mind it. Does it do everything that I'd like it to, no, it's definitely not perfect. But it's free and you can design a pretty nice setup sheet with it if you spend some time learning how to use it.  I've never reached out to anyone but I would guess that you could pay to have one made that looks pretty professional? 

Yes, that's very annoying,

LoL @ "but it's free"....I could say I bought it for 20k and got mastercam thrown in

For auld time sake, IMHO the most important thing for a 'grammer to do, is convey the minimum required information to the shop floor, to swiftly and successfully make the part. Obviously, both concise and accurate information. The reason why I say minimum, is because some of these set-sheets are data creators - and IME, people's eyes glaze over - they don't bother to read it. Less is best.

And it really should be (as close as possible) one-click.

3 hours ago, sharles said:

So, maybe I need to contact Gunther and see if he can approximately replicate what I have in our Excel sheet??? Does it load right into Mastercam like our Varco reports does so that it will automatically grab as much information as possible, but still allow us to make generic comments like I showed in our Excel sheets?

If you are already running Varco - I would first email Jim and see if there's anything he can do.

The problem with too many different softwares, can be upkeep....

Ref x+, yes. it loads to a folder and you have an icon on the top bar.

4 minutes ago, Bill Craven said:

Newbeeee,

I think that one of the things that really hurts Active reports is how difficult it is to learn to modify the templates to get the output that you want.  We are supposed to be programming parts.  ("Why isn't that spindle running?")

Sometimes, I would spend as much time documenting a project as programming.  The information was there, we just had to get it out of the Mastercam file.

I remember when Dave Thompson was with IHS, he was my mentor for Post Processor generated setup sheets.  Way before AR.

I spent my own time learning AR.  I primarliy do turnkey projects now and wanted to have some polished looking results that I could generate with one click of the mouse.  I have gotten close to what I want, but 2023 broke it for me.  

Jim Varco's product is very good and it is pretty easy to make many modifications.

Gunther's X+ is excellent and I use it for quick double checks of settings.  (Did I remember to turn the coolant on for all operations?)  15 seconds later, I have my answer.  I am sure I could do more with it, but I have invested time and energy in AR.

There have been whispered rumors swirling around in the mist for years that CNC was going to implement a new Setup sheet report writer.  

 

X+ Yes, I (we/company) used it as a set sheet for prototype work or parts that probably wouldn't repeat. Easy.

And used it every time for exactly as you say - planes set okay, coolant on, THD okay etc.

Don't get me wrong, I had it outputting exactly what I wanted (in reality it was effectively a tool list) - my reseller had Ruth @CNC work on it for me when we initially struggled. Saving as pdf and then opening into Nitro, it allowed amendments, adding photographs of the part set-up etc which in the end worked okayish.

Regarding a new report writer....it would be far easier to buy Gunthers X+ or Jim's Varco reports, and package it with the product. At least people know it. History has shown, that "implementing new" can be a "bit of a PITA"....(as AR, initial View Sheets, and Tool manager as a few examples, show).....

IMHO, you're too kind Bill!
I remember the excitement and fanfare of the AR release, back in X4.
2009.
And here we are, 14 years later...10bucks says Gunthers X+ still knocks AR out the park.
As a (former) purchaser of 2x full seats and many years of paying maintenance, I invested a small fortune into mcam.
So my disappointed opinion, is AR was a badly conceived and implemented, college project.

20 minutes ago, So not a Guru said:

 

If you have Acrobat Pro, you can export the pdf as a Word document.

In the halcyon days  the X7/X9 era, there was issues with using this - I tried it and there was something that was a problem - "boxes" import not aligning with text perhaps (or that may have been the HTML)?

Anyway, Nitro was the only thing I could get to handle it faultlessly. Although a bit of a PITA at editing and adding/aligning text. But it worked well.

Whether Acrobat handles it perfect now though....?