in the past i have exported a number of toolpaths to use as templates for other parts. i now find that i would like to modify some of the parameters in these source operations and delete a few of them entirely, but i can't seem to do either. what am i missing? running X2 MR2 SP1 thanks k

i'm working on a 5 axis swarf. on the tip control if you check Lower Rail and enter a value in the 'Distance above lower' window, i am wondering is that a distance measured vertically or along the angle of the swarf surface?

once you are sure your post is set up and running properly, colin's suggestion to get 'hand's on' personal training with your machine is a good one. you can't beat a knowledgeable person at your side training you. i found the mastercam handbooks written by charles davis to be very helpful. volume 3 deals specifically with multiaxis machining. you can track it down through the books tab on the forum. k

gcode ran various toolpaths with different settings. a fellow from CNC software privately emailed me and asked to have a look. he said everything looked okay at a glance, but he was going to do some testing with it possibly next week. and apparently i am also unable to follow simple instructions; can't manage to upload file. dragging and dropping the file over to the FTP prompts a 'You have chosen to open' window but won't seem to save it.

bernie - 1st question - why 6 place decimals? cuz i haven't thought to change it. agree, six is excessive, but haven't really give it any thought until you pointed it out. i seem to recall reading about adjusting that somewhere. is there a place value setting somewhere in the control definition? quote: _________________________________________________ At this point I think you should call in your reseller to go over this problem with you. Something is wrong. _________________________________________________ is the implication that you believe something needs to be adjusted in the post? and thanks, even small comments can be helpful. at the very least this topic is helping me bear down on 200 posts. i appreciate your input.

bogusmill - i've tried finish parallel running parallel to the wave . . again everything for the most part gave the same result. i remodeled the form myself (original model was an outside source) same result. nice idea; projecting a line onto the surface. projected entity analyzes as a nurbs spline. also, yes to your question - ran it through 3 and 5 axis post. i'll try a flowline path; i think that is one of the few i haven't tried. no one has answered the question yet, so i'll go ahead and ask again. does the code posted a few threads up look appropriate for cutting along a wave? sorry if this is getting repetitive. i'm about ready to give up. it's just frustrating not being able to locate the limiting factor. i cut alot of three dimensional parts with curved surfaces and the result here was just not acceptable. could there be some factor in the post causing the faceting - ie limiting the output? thanks again for all the suggestions

well for those who followed some of this. i've run seven different toolpaths with varying parameters - finish parallel, tolerances high and low, arc filtering off, surface finish scallop on bias, and posted through my 5 axis and 3 axis post. very little difference on the gamut. the 3 axis version might be a hair better. i've copied a section of the code. they all pretty much look like this, with an occasional X move to jog the spindle over at the end of the run. does that look right? shouldn't there be some curve data? ;( TOOL - 08 ) ;( T8_0.375 BALL / 5X_TT001 / ST2 ) N1250 M06 T8 N1260 M03 S15000 N1270 G00 X1.009016 Y0. A0. C0. N1280 Z5. N1290 Z1.591058 N1300 G01 Z1.341058 F30. N1310 Y.043247 Z1.342406 F200. N1320 X1.009 Y.100054 Z1.347276 N1330 Y.156507 Z1.3556 N1340 Y.21235 Z1.367341 N1350 Y.267375 Z1.382455 N1360 Y.321379 Z1.400886 N1370 Y.374163 Z1.422567 N1380 Y.425531 Z1.447417 N1390 Y.475294 Z1.475344 N1400 Y.523266 Z1.506245 N1410 Y.569271 Z1.540005 N1420 Y.613138 Z1.5765 N1430 Y.654705 Z1.615595 N1440 Y.703101 Z1.661354

we have 5 of them . . . . more is more

anyone notice that when opening a rhino file directly into mastercam that any point entities in the original file aren't imported? if you run it through iges or some other intermediate, points are present. is this a known issue? running X2 MR2 SP1.

you are right, the machine can't hold that tolerance. those were only the last settings i used in running the part - did several. i think the original total tolerance was set at .002. unfortunately, i kept overwriting rather than saving toolpaths so i can't say for sure. i know i just went smaller. interesting to try larger; i will give that a try. also fuzzy on the relationships of total tolerance, filter ratio, filter tolerance, and cut tolerance. thanks for the input

i'll try that as well and report back anything worth reporting.

radii vary from approximately 2 to 0.5 and i have the total tolerance set to 0.0005. HSS downcut ballend w/ 0.375 diameter. haven't tried surface finish scallop. also thinking to rotate the entire cut 90 degrees and run the cutter along the waves instead of across. the customer took the part, but i want to track down the problem. i've had some less than stellar surfaces prior to this, and thought it might be a machine issue. the geometry of this particular part really highlighted how and where the problem manifests, but a solution is still in hiding. i am going to run some part tests with this surface next week when i have more time. could this be a post issue? it is a 5 axis post, but only running 3 axis on this part. i don't understand why the code is all G1.

Anyone ..... anyone ... Bueller???

a little late in the game, but john's single flute cutter is good advice. i've also used double sided tape to avoid tabs on small parts and it is very effective if you have the right tape. k

opps, reread your post more carefully after being excited about promise for solution ---- yes, 90 degree. should be arcs, no?

yes, 90 degree. i will change it and report back.

Cad-Camr yep, done that already . . . which is why i am puzzled about all the G1 code. i'm far from an expert on code, but it all appears to be line output . . . . . . . long shot, but you don't happen to know tom urban? a friend of mine who lives in eugene. more info - original file was solidworks. running X2 MR2 SP1

tried lots of bits - last settings Filter ratio 2:1 Filter Tolerance 0.000333 Cut Tolerance 0.000167 Total Tolerance 0.0005

okay, i was just scanning topics and read about this and about two hours later it happens to me: imagine you drop a pebble into a glass smooth pond, producing concentric waves - small and tight expanding to larger and elongated. now draw a containment rectangle from near the center where the pebble was dropped to the outermost rings and pull that surface out and put it in mastercam. the surface to be cut then is rectangular with a descending wave pattern. i've cut the surface with a finish parallel toolpath with the tool running across the waves - ie up and down the waves as if surfing (for calis) or skiing (for canucks) the surface on the elongated, further out waves is excellent progressing to an aztec temple quality finish on the smaller tighter waves. i have changed the filter tolerances; i have create arcs in all planes checked; and i have support arcs checked in the control definition. And, i haven't improved my surface quality. CLUE? . . . the code in all of these efforts appears to be all G1 output. any enlightening comments would be appreciated. thanks k

if i understand your problem - i've had a similar problem with another program. it did allow me to save my changes and worked as i set them. the problem was that the changes didn't stick to other files or sessions. i had to log in as an administrator and change my user profile to have modify permissions.

that scenario sounds like you may not be logged in with administrative privileges.

i've draped a few things in rhino. it will give you a nurbs surface which you can add to / manipulate, but my experience has been the draped surface comes out a bit rougher than the original part. creases and deformations that were not present in the original. the new surface tended to come out like a vacuum formed part. webbing and draft angles. there are several tolerance parameters to adjust the results.

i get it now. nice feature. thanks

i give up. i just did a quick test with curve on edges with and without the 'open edges' button; also using large and small values. i didn't see a difference. it was only on a flat square plane - maybe that makes a difference. what does this feature do?

bumpity bump