After re-reading your post, you can dis-reguard half of what I said Which half?

Thanks, Franco.

About 20 years ago, at my first shop job, I was flycutting some ABS plastic down to thickness on an old Bridgeport clone with auto-feed. As I'm watching it feed, I notice that it's starting to cut rings into the plastic. I think to myself "What the..." and then I suddenly realize that the knife is slipping out of the turret, causing it to cut deeper. I quickly consider hitting the E-stop, but since it's on top of the head, it means I'd have to reach up and expose as much of my body as possible right in front of the spinning cutter. So instead I yell "Duck!" to the two other guys in the shop, then hit the deck myself, and just as I do the cutter lets loose with enough speed that it bounces off of two walls. No one hurt, nothing damaged except the ABS stock. But if I had reached up to hit that poorly-placed E-stop, the cutter would have gone right through me. I guess I have to take the blame, though, for not checking the set screws before loading the tool. [ 07-01-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

Cammando, I have voted for Republicans in the past, and even for Libertarians. I also believe that GWB is a decent man, but I am bothered by his hubris, his swagger, and his lack of humility. And I'm sure it's no surprise that I am also bothered by some of his policies. I wasn’t trying to say that Clinton is without blame, nor do I like to be in the position of defending him. But I get frustrated when people try to blame all of the nation’s current woes on him. Some of the blame must go even further back, to the de-regulation that started under Reagan. Just as the current Iraq situation has roots in the arms deals of the 80’s, so does the economy. Of course, every president tries to take the credit for all of the good, while passing the blame for all of the bad. But sooner or later, each sitting president has to assume responsibility for the state of the union under his administration. The two links were not meant to have anything in common. The 9/11 one was responding to Jack's reference to the JFK ‘conspiracy’. The other was relating to economics. No connection. But thanks for finding the Clinton/intelligence/piracy connection. Makes this all seem a little less O/T. Oh, and I think you’re right about the song. Jack, what does he win?

Hey, A-Ron! How's it going? That's a funny list. Has nothing to do with anything, but funny. Where'd you find it? I'll go search the web for a similarly erroneous and unfounded list of jokes about conservatives and send it your way. Of course, neither list will prove a damn thing, other than that it's easier to make a bunch of cheap shots than it is to assemble a cohesive argument. I don't disagree that the longest period of economic growth in US history may have been on the wane before Clinton left office. But are we supposed to demonize Clinton for not making it last even longer? Meanwhile, Bush Jr isn't the least bit responsible for turning it into the worst economy since the Great Depression? Talk about hypocrisy! As for the 'Liberal Media'.. So you're saying that knowledgeable people who make their living following current political events overwhelmingly voted Democratic? Boy, you'd think that would be a powerful endorsement. Too bad it's not true. I think the study you were refering to was conducted by The Media Research Center, a self-described conservative media watchdog group. They quoted a 2001 Gallup poll, in which 25% of the press self-identified as liberals, and 27% self-identified as Democrats. Meanwhile, something like 20% self-identified as Republicans, and 11% self-identified as conservatives (sorry, I don't have the study in front of me at the moment). You could twist this around to say that 89% did not self-identify as conservatives, therefore they must be liberals, but that wouldn't be accurate. The majority self-identified as moderates or undeclared. It was only when the Media Research Center arbitrarily added in business reporters that the results became lop-sided towards liberals and Democrats, apparently demonstrating that well-educated people who make their living watching business and the economy overwhelmingly self-identified as liberals. Again, sounds like an endorsement to be proud of. Media Research Center http://secure.mediaresearch.org. Hey Jack. How's Canada? [ 06-20-2003, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

This one's just to get me to an even 100 posts.

I learned MasterCam on the job, and was able to be up and running with it in a few days. By contrast, I'm told that the program at the local JC requires you to take a full semester just learning G&M codes, then another semester of programming before you actually get to try running anything on a CNC! you don't learn any 3D until the second year. The head of the program has apparently created job security for himself by turning it into a two-year program. lesbian fire fighters abducted by aliens Hey, James, where can I rent that?

I'll even take on Lovelace for this one. Jack, Sorry to be a little late to the game, here, but I'm not sure what you mean by your comment. Are you expecting me to disagree with your assertions that the public has been deprived of the truth regarding Kennedy's assasination and WMD? Or that the economy was better under Clinton than it is under Bush (either one)? Well, I hate to disappoint your thirst for a good argument, but if you want to bait me, you'll have to start spouting some neo-con drivel, like how it's Clinton's fault that he couldn't sustain the longest period of economic growth in US history beyond his own presidency. Or how 'smaller government' means giving the Feds the right to spy on the US public. Or how the end justifies the means. Or how "We've found the weapons of mass destruction." Or better yet, just say the words 'Liberal Media'. Here are a couple of links that ought to feed the fires around here. The first is an interesting 'conspiracy theory' view of events surrounding 9/11. I'm not saying I endorse it, but it is interesting and, at times, compelling. The second demonstrates how, under Bush Jr, the US has suffered its first net job loss since World War II. Have fun! FromTheWilderness.com; 9/11 conspiracy Machinist's Union - Job losses under Bush BTW, what does any of this have to do with internet piracy?

Never had a muscle car or a motorcycle. When I was 16, I bought a '67 MGB roadster, which I still have 24 years later. I've been through every part of that car more times than I'd like to admit. Now you guys with your big V8s and Superbikes may not believe the kinds of unholy speeds that this MG is capable of. You will be shocked, and your jaws will drop in disbelief. But I swear to you that I have actually pushed that thing to a solid 100 mph! Actually, though, the car is a blast because you can drive it absolutely flat-out without breaking the law. The fastest I've ever gone in a car was in a '71 Corvette roadster with a heavily massaged 454 that had been dyno'd at a true 500hp. It was about 3am, and I was riding with my buddy Mike, who lost his right arm in an accident (bought the car with insurance money). I asked him casually "So how fast is this thing, anyway?" We had just turned onto a wide straightaway (35mph zone), and from a rolling start at about 10mph, he punched it, and I was pasted into the seat. The streetlights blurred, like the 'jump to light speed' in Star Wars. Twice Mike let go of the wheel to reach over and manually-shift the tranny with his left arm. In less than a block's distance (under 1/4 mile) I glanced at the speedo and saw it climb past 120. Mike hit the brakes and quickly brought it back down to 35. I don't know what it could hit at the top end, but at 120 it felt like it was just getting started.

My client said he will relocate someone and/or sponsor someone if they are the right candidate and salary is up tp 150K for the right person. Hmmm... Let me telecommute from California, and I'll only ask $100K, plus you won't have to pay to relocate me. Such a deal!

Me again. I just posted and saw your note that you are using butterboard. You should be able to get this thing well under 2 hours, if not under 1. I ran a sample toolpath on one pocket and had it at 2 minutes per pocket using parameters for polycarb. Butterboard cuts, well, like butter. The long toolpath process time is due to the surface/finish/leftover. It takes forever to crunch those. It sucks when you have do it again, and again, and again...

Tazzer, I would suggest that you rough the part as a series of 2D pockets, using a 1/4" or 3/8" flat end mill. Use a 1/8" or 3/16" ball, rather than a bullnose, for the radiused sides, and use a surface/finish/contour toolpath instead of finish/leftover. With the contour, be sure to check the box for 'shallow' parameters, as this allows you to reduce your stepover where the surface runs closer to a horizontal plane, thus reducing scalloping. Then do a 2D contour around the base of the pocket with a 1/8" flat end mill, to cut the walls right up to where they run tangent to the radius at the top. If you really want to chisel those corners, then you could go back in with a surface/finish/leftover and a 1/16" ball end mill, but that will really bump up your run time. It depends on what you want for the finished product. Another option, if you don't need the corners to be 'chiseled', would be to cut it as a 2D pocket, then cut the radius at the top using a standard woodworker's 1/8" radius cutter. This will work fine with polycarbonate. You'll have to remove the bearing first, and grind down the tip so it's flush, but this would cut your walls nice and smooth. It will leave a radius in the corners, though. Feel free to e-mail me if you want. I'd be happy to talk to you about this.

G-code, for this customer, that's probably the best advice I've recieved so far. They've got no idea what a job is worth, they're just positive that it ought to be cheaper than whatever I quote them. Then again, if they want it 20% cheaper, I suppose I could make the part 20% less than correct. Sounds fair to me.

Aren't Trojans supposed to protect you from viruses? [ 05-30-2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

James and Rek'd, Actually, I have been itemizing my quotes pretty thoroughly, and unfortunately I've found it just gives them more to complain about. "Why do you need 6 hours to draw it? I gave you a sketch with numbers on it!" "Why does it take 7 hours to write the toolpath? Doesn't the software do that for you?" "8 hours to machine it? But the last thing you did for us only took 5 hours!" For this customer, at least, I'm deciding that I don't want to give them any more information than I have to.

I have a client that I do programming for, and then sub-out the machining. Typically, we do rather simple 2-part casting molds, though occasionally we do more complex 4-part molds. All of the products have organic 3D forms to them and, being in a small town, they don't have a lot of option of who to go to for this level of CAD and CNC programming. This causes them to act suspicious of any quote I give them for a project, as if I'm taking advantage of them. Truth is, I typically underbid, so that I can be sure I am not taking advantage. Nonetheless, they always act shocked at how much it will cost them to get a mold made, even though we've done this a dozen times, now. How can I give them an idea of what it would cost them to try to get this thing programmed and made out of the area, without investing a bunch of my own time bidding it out to potential competitors? Also, would it be appropriate use of the forum for me to post a file to get estimates from other users as to how much time (not $) they would bid a given job at?

Thanks, Jack. I'll look for that. Like Bernie said, Mcam creates an unmanageable number of control points, and trying to move them with any consistency seems nearly impossible. maybe that article will help.

Is there anyone out there who is really familiar with the details of modifying a surface using nurbs control points? This is something that I have not been able to become truly adept at, and Mastercam's Help file is definitely lacking on this subject. Usually, I like to keep my surfaces as derived from their geometry, but every now and then it would be nice to be able to tweak it, to soften it a little here, or smooth out a transition there. Any help from a master would be appreciated.

If this 'student' version had its own file format, no file converters, and no posting ability, it seems to me that it would be a great tool. But I can imagine that one potential problem would be that some MCam shops could use it as a way to effectively get a second (or third) seat without having to buy it. How about if the 'student' version was used in conjunction with a portable USB 'keyring' sim that was tied to only one MCam system? That way, work done by students could only be imported into their own school's Mcam system. Perhaps this non-postable version could also be available to industrial users, but only a single copy per licensed seat, and at a reasonable cost. It would give licensed users a little more flexibility, while keeping things under control. To clarify: The keyring sim enables only a special non-postable version of Mcam using a special file type. To post or otherwise convert a file, it must be loaded onto a fully-licensed Mastercam system. For that system to read the student format, it must have the student sim also in place. The key is that each student sim would only work in conjunction with a specific regular sim. As an extra precaution, the student sim could be date-sensitive, and time-out after a year. [ 05-22-2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lovelace ]

Smit, I use leftover a lot, and I have had mixed results with it. There have been times when verify has shown gouging that is imperceptible in the finished product, and there have been times when the finished part has gouges that didn't show up in verify. I haven't been able to get this totally ironed out, myself, but I would pay very close attention to gap settings, filter settings, stock-to-leave on check surfaces (if used), and tolerances on both the roughing and finishing toolpaths. Also, if you are DNCing, this can possibly cause your CNC to hesitate while it waits for the code to trickle in, and can lead to jerky movements which could possibly affect gouging. I'm a little curious as to your choice of cutters. Without seeing your file, I would think that using a bullnose or flat-end mill for roughing and ball-end for finishing would yield your best surface.

Some of the raster-to-vector convertors do not have a scaling function, so they import a 100dpi image as 100-units-of-measure. I.e. a 1" square would convert to a 100" square. As long as you can do the math to scale it after converting, no problem.

For V10, I want MasterCam to always know exactly what it is that I'm trying to do, and to do it for me without me having to tell it how I want it done. Is that so much to ask?

Jack, I sense that you're holding back about your feelings toward Microsoft, here. It's okay to let it out. Tell us what you really think. With all of the money Bill Gates has, you'd think he could afford a decent haircut. And maybe he could pay someone to dress him better. A-ron, your employer must really trust you. I hardly even trust myself to take the sim off of my computer!

"Non Transferable You may not transfer or assign the Program or this Software License Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder. Any attempt to do so will be voided and shall result in automatic termination of this License without prejudice to all other legal rights and remedies of CNC." My understanding is that if a company that owns one or more seats of MasterCam is bought or sold, the software license can be sold as a part of that company, but not seperately. However, the new owner must pay a re-licensing fee of 50% of the retail cost. So, if a sole proprietor ("Joe Smith DBA General Machine Service") buys Mcam under his company name, and then sells the company, does the software license stay with him or go with the company? Or, if a large company is bought up by a larger company (Volvo bought by Ford), does the new owner have to relicense their 200 seats of Mcam? Or, if either company sells all of their assets, en masse, but not their name, is the license transferable? (PS; Good eye, Andy. Now quit surfing E-Bay for cheap cutters and get back to work!)

Chris and A-ron have some good points. When considering making a change such as requiring an on-line connection, the question should be 'Who benefits?' Anti-piracy measures are something that primarily benefit CNC Software Inc, and its resellers, so the end-users shouldn't have to pay a price for it in terms of inconvenience. Of course, we presumably benefit from a lower end-user price, assuming that curbing piracy results in an increase in legit sales. But will that actually happen? Other than that, the end-user benefits only from the satisfaction of knowing that he didn't pay $15K for software that he could have for free just by selling his soul. Looking at it simply as a cold, hard, consumer reality, I do not want to be put at any inconvenience just to protect someone else's bottom line. I had to shell out the money for the software, and I want to be able to use it freely. Another thing to consider is that piracy is a strange way of increasing market share. The more people use it, legit or not, the more likely that it will be their choice when they do go legit. Additionally, the more pervasive it is in the marketplace, the more it becomes first choice for anyone looking to buy CAD/CAM software. I will confess (as my reseller already knows) that I learned Mcam from a past employer who had an illegitimate license. When I started my own biz, I bought it for myself because I was familiar with it. Eventually, my past employer went legit, too. I later convinced another local shop to buy Mill 9, too. That's 3 sales that resulted indirectly from one illegitimate user. The alternative of taking the original 'pirate' to court would likely have cost the reseller money. Converting him to a legit customer was far more profitable. It ain't pretty, but it's money.