How about:

Select the geometry

Right click select "Options"

Change feed...

Now, that would be nice.

The big problem for me is many times I can't use the Change at point with the selection arrow, I must scroll thru the list. Makes for a long day looking for geometry.

--

Bill

In X and X2 I have had all the operations disappear (leaving the empty toolpath groups. Hard to say how it occurs but I think it's tied to cutting and pasting an op... not sure yet.

The issue of library tools disappearing has happened to us as well but for a different reason: The user did the "Save tool to library" instead of copy/paste to the library. The tool tip advise that pops up is VERY misleading to a new user. Makes it sound like the tool will be ADDED to an existing library. As such I copy all the libraries to a read only folder on the network every night.

--

Bill

Shawn,

In SW lookup the Help file for "2D to 3D Conversion". You convert the top, front, side views of the wire into sketches which are then used to build a solid. Depending on complexity, it can be pretty easy.

Btw, most users of SW don't get training so the help has some decent examples of how it works.

--

Bill

You guys are funny!

--

Bill

Haas machines have the Renishaw Easyset software option. With it, you can teach the machine (at the control) the probing routine then save it with the program. Currently we either hand code then paste it in or use the quickcode editor to create it. Mainly used for locating rough casting fixture offsets and checking flatness when done.

We're starting to look at the Renishaw Productivity Plus as well as a better method for process control.

--

Bill

Vericut.

As stated, it's "pricey" (will cost more than your seat of MC). But, that's a call that only your type of work can dictate.

--

Bill

Bruce, I found on an NT box a few years back (for Vericut anyways) that 1&2 were pegged, 3 was about 3/4 and 4 was about 50%.

--

Bill

The other option I just got today is to define the tool with a .0001" smaller diameter to the corners. Not the elegant but it does work.

--

Bill

"......that is why i use the merge files when doing big jobs with lots of different parts ...I split up the assembly into different Mc files and then put them back together when finished."

An assembly based cadcam system allows one to work on parts. No breaking them out of their assemblies into another system to machine. While more complex to maintain (for some situations), they really shine in this area. It also allows the implementation of a fully featured machine simulation model which can be added just like a bolt or a screw.

--

Bill

A requirement for X3:

Save As - then, select the objects to save. There is no easier or more logical way to do it. Other systems do it this way.

--

Bill

Just thinking out loud here...

Short of macros, custom cycles, linear moves, or hand edits, an "approach" plane in addition to the start, retract, and clearance planes would work. That would allow you to feed quickly from the approach plane to the start point - but not a rapid. It would have many uses in milling operations as well. Other systems have this.

--

Bill

One of the problems with the MCX to Vericut interface is every toolpath group is converted to a "Setup" in Vericut. You can imagine the problems that creates. For me, I output stls and verify gcode. The hassles of the interface aren't worth it. Another issue is one nci file for every operation. Not real slick either.

That said, Vericut with Machine Simulation rocks!

--

Bill

Plunge milling without an angled retract from the wall is only a glorified drill cycle. It's a computer I would think it could do that for us, no?

--

Bill

The most common is probing.

--

Bill

Rick,

I have the same problem. I too create points instead of using the solid holes so I can use "Jump" in At Point.

--

Bill

MCX MR2

Don,

I posted the reply last night but it's gone today...

The company uses Mastercam.

--

Bill

Many of the larger aerospace shops, use the appropriate mirror code at the machine and then left hand cutters.

Just an idea...

--

Bill

I for one would like to select multiple solids for one stock model (like my old system). We often have weldments with >50 pieces and all have 1/8" gaps (for weld). I play heck creating a single solid out of these things.

--

Bill

gcode,

Interesting how things are perceived. In the deal I was negotiating, the base was about the same. Training is extra as is the post (but I've done enough to do them myself). The maintenance is a bit more. But, I should also add you can dump Solidworks at that point though so there is some savings... Enough about the other guys... It is what it is... The folks liking each will use each.

That all said, cost of MCX is not an issue where I work and that was the deciding factor.

Just give me true solids with faces I can change colors! It's so much easier finding features. I hate creating surfaces just to highlight them. My parts are 12' long with little tiny holes and slots all over!

--

Bill

"If you want one package for everything, spend $60,000.00 for one seat of Catia V5 with the NC package. Then you can spend $15,000.00 a year on maintainence."

Colin,

This is in no way to debat who's got the better system but...

I hear this all the time. It's getting old .

Do not use Catia as a comparison. Use UG. As one who has used UG for 8 years and MCX for the past several months, I can say withtout a doubt that should be the comparison (if there should be any).

Ask around what the costs are (not here) for similar features. They are NOT that far and in some cases equal to MCX. That is why MCX must be improved in the cad side. It's the industry's "dirty little secret".

CNC Software needs to remove the wall between solids and explicit geometry very soon. Simple assemblies would be the next right step. Kinimatics for machine sim will kill your computer if it is not assembly based.

--

Bill

"Wouldn't analyze dynamic do what you are trying to do?"

I'm a newer user coming from one that didn't separate solids from curves so I'm a bit ignorant of this analyze dynamic feature. I did find that if I select inside the bore, it shows the diameter. My previous system you would select the edge of the solid. Works.

Thanks

--

Bill

Does MX2 allow one to change a solid face color yet? While we're at it, allow one to analyze the edge of a solid for radius info?

--

Bill

Does MX2 allow one to change a solid face color yet? While we're at it, allow one to anylize the edge of a solid for radius info?

--

Bill

Does MX2 allow one to change a solid face color yet?

--

Bill

Bruce,

While not MCX specific... NX4's machine sim is very integrated into their system. You use Machine Builder which ties into Post Builder. That said it is not reading actual gcode (at this version) but the UG/Apt source. Sort of like MC using nci files for simulation. Great for checking. I wish all cam systems had this feature.

--

Bill