I found a few more calculators for those that may still be looking. http://integrexmachi...0Calculator.PDF http://twitpic.com/5m7gdv For this link, select the URL to download: http://tinyurl.com/3u4kl5u Calculators of all types for the trade: http://www.ipstooling.com/resources.swf Still trying to wrap your head around the Chip Thinning theory? This may help. http://www.volumill....ite_Paper_1.pdf

Perhaps the market for Volumill is limited as a whole, and certainly redundant in MC, but a few other CAM packages are getting involved with it at the moment. I don't have NX experience but they partnered up with them ? You would have thought that they would have been on this stuff a long time ago. I was kind of disappointed when I saw that.

Isn't .dwg 2d output only in SW? The .igs import will work and brings it in as a sketch or entities as set in your option prior to import into SW, a lot of them will come in if your importing a saved 3d tool path from MC. It will get ugly quickly. In your case, entities might be the better choice. Save the surfaces as a .X_B and merge them with the same file in SW that you imported the entities into. The order really doesn't matter but be prepared for a long history tree. Bringing in all those entities as a sketch will shorten the tree, but it will look hideous and be difficult to analyze. If you have the option, use the arc filter in MC prior to saving the geo. to make things go a little smoother. IMO, your customer is asking for a lot of unnecessary work and probably won't like the results. If they have verification software for G-code, they might be in a better place by using that.

Yes really. No plane creation and all geo created in 3d space on one level is much faster for me. No exporting or importing required either. The key here is SIMPLE MODELS. I do like SW but for sheer speed there is no reason to bop back and forth between 2 apps to create a simple model that does not need to be shared. I still have the option of exporting the solid from MC in a universal format if required. More complex work or assemblies, SW rules.

"2 differnt companies offering different solutions to what Mastercam should do well on its own....yet CNC Software chooses to kick one out. Me thinks it might have something to do with Volumill paying "Smurfware" for their truemill thingie....and CNC Software suing Surfware for them threatening to sue CNC. Whatever the situation...the end user is the one that pays." A little insight. http://www.freesteel...ptive-clearing/ Warning! Do not visit the following within the first hour of eating or while intoxicated. http://camzone.org/2...-longer-boring/

"how about some of these threads. They must be a damn gold mine if you ask me." No doubt about that. IMO, it's not only the negative publicity as a sales tool that's a bonus. The smart competition is actually gathering data / feedback from the MC community on what works, what doesn't, and what the needs are of the masses are that dwell in this realm. More or less public beta testing in general. OT. I don't understand how the development of MC4SW can not actually destroy the user base of stand alone MC in the coming years. Take the recent addition of the old school tool paths, the upcoming Multi axis stuff, a splash of Volumill or Cimco, and throw in some of the other plug ins from the various manufacturing disciplines and you have a very powerful and customizable environment that's very flexible. If you find that one app (plug in) doesn't fit your needs, you dump it and get another with out sacrificing your total investment. What I'd really like to see is the full blown incorporation of Xform functionality in the MC4SW package for both sketching and moving things around as the native SW tools used for theses functions can be awkward or difficult to use. That's the primary reason I still do solid modeling in MC. If a model does not require fancy surfaces, variable rads or tricky lofts, I can get the results I want much quicker in MC. Enough babbling for now. And yes, the HSMWorks (Cimco product) forum is very open about bugs and getting users the answers they need very quickly on various topics. They need to work on some tutorials though. Even the HSM Performance pack tutorials were kind of crappy. They show you what to do, but do not go into depth on the specific options with in a tool path. Ya, I know, they are not the only one's guilty of this.

Not trying to be a pessimist here but be care full what you wish for. Old bugs, new bugs, whatever the case may be, it's hard to beat the over all functionality of MC in a 2d realm. And to be quite honest, I don't have very many issues with the old school tool paths in 3D work either. I've dabbled in some of the HST tool paths only when I have free time and definitely understand there allure. Once you get the 2d HST to work, it's awesome. Powermill, NX, Catia and others may be just fine at making a 5X tool path dance, have better stock set up functionality and machine tool simulation, but they suck at 2d. Way too many pages and options to go through. Nasty learning curve as well. OT.. James, you mentioned Catia launching in about 30 seconds with a SSD. Heh, I literally timed a launch at over 2 minutes using a standard 7200 rpm sata drive, on a quad core machine in a 64bit OS, I thought the machine had crashed. WTF is that about? Is this the norm?

"Is there anyway to change the default excel style" Yes, the first page that appears when you trigger X+ has a dialog box that has an option for excel or HTML. I do not have access to it at the moment, but I believe its in the upper right side of the screen.

"Would be a nice enhancement" This should have been core functionality with the release of any tool path. 6 versions along with numerous patches and updates into the X series and still not there. This is really sad.

The very first post in this topic has the link.

I agree with those statements and understand the need for verification software. Protecting serious investments like that is a no brainer. Things like dog leg moves, holder clearances, collisions with fixture components are not the liability of MC or any other CAM package. Those responsibilities lie in the hands of the programmer and the set up man. There is still a need to eyeball the code in those scenarios. Scrutinizing code 100% manually is silly. But watching the indexing moves and clearances is a must. Most of the 3 axis work I do does not require verification software as I have the luxury of being the set up guy and the programmer 90% of the time and know whats going to take place before the set up starts and cycle starts get pressed. Easy work as far as set-ups and clearances go.

I don't have X5 or X6 experience. Very rarely use the HS tool paths. Never touched a 5X machine or used a trunnion. I do have a decent level of experience with the traditional surfacing tool paths. Keeping those limitations in mind... how does one get 25 gouges in Mastercam and not see it in back plot or verify? I know there are issues to be considered with the last two releases but still, 25 gouges? C'mon... this sounds like carelessness or a lack of experience. In over 4 years of programming MC, I've only gouged a part twice at the machine, both times were attributed to something I did, not MC. (Yes, I do make other dumb mistakes on occasion, I'm still human) I have a co worker who stands at the machine with his head in the door watching every fricken move start to finish, all 2D to boot and he looks as serious as a brain surgeon while he's doing it. Drives me nuts. He either doesn't know what he has programmed, doesn't know what he's looking at, or is putting on a show for those that don't know better and just killing time to avoid running another machine or programming the next job. The point is, knowing what your looking at in back plot or verify will catch most of the gouges and crashes prior to posting, at least in a 3 axis realm. Am I way off base here?

"but I do not want to have to pick each surface one by one, or even using windowing." PM me with your credit card number and I'll send you a magic wand. Seriously, use a solid, NOT Surfaces, containment boundaries, or the limiters that Chris speaks of.

Heh, I was being polite. So far so good with HSMWorks. It has its issues but the support is phenomenal, patches come frequently, and it progresses quickly. Kind of hard not to like it. Best of all, it's JB free (for now).

"So it's catch 22. Pay a little more each year to 'protect your investment', or pay nothing and in a couple of years when you want to upgrade, pay nearly the full cost again.' Yes, but based on past performance and current conditions, at this rate, most of the better CAM packages will be light years ahead. If you would have switched at the release of X2, cost would have been covered by now. The real cost is training and lost time/productivity during the transition to a new package. Very hefty, especially with multiple seats and employees to train. (OT, another dam glitch, can't edit that last sentence again) From an outside perspective, that is to say some one who doesn't use MC but is viewing this thread, only a handful of people are stating that they are having issues with the current release. With over 7000 views in this thread so far, only a hand full have replied, most are probably lurking. My guess is that the majority of those who have upgraded are probably not power users and seem to be satisfied with the new goods. Whatever works I guess.

MCM

Joan is having a up to the minute field day with this topic. For those of you that keep whining about the bug... Why, oh why do you keep paying maintenance on it ? How many times can you get bitch slapped before you turn away? Are you married to this stuff and afraid of the alimony? Good news is , I just tried a pint of Rasputin Imperial, fricken' awesome.

'Don't get me wrong - it is slow as molasses in January" You can say the same about VMWare. It added an addition 7 processes in the background as well. Looked like $heet. No decent video drivers available for it yet. Setting it up on a separate drive supposedly increases performance some. I couldn't take it no more and un installed it. On the plus side, it was simple to install and easy to set-up. You could also window out of it smoothly, back into the native OS with out rebooting.

It looks like you could also fit a 123 block at the movable jaw, inside the c-bore, and get some more bearing surface to clamp on. One on the solid jaw face as well if similar geometry conditions exist.

"What got yanked fast ?" Joan made an appearance. It wasn't on here 2 minutes.

Oh no...... Dam, that get yanked already?

I should clarify that some. I'll post a new machine group for each new operation, meaning set-up. All operations on one face get their own Machine group, flip the part, start a new Machine group and so on. If I want to keep the same tool numbers or settings from a particular group, I'll drag and drop it.

"thats how we do it, new group for every tool" OK, I'll bite. I never new you could have a new tool path group as a sub-group. Whats the purpose/benefit of this style? I've been posting a new Machine group and naming it for each op, sequentially or by face, then have all tools for that op in that tool path group, then done. Repeat for next face.

"By all means, I'm open to ALL suggestions!" IMO. I'd put a cap with a radius-ed edge (revolve) on top of the boss and include that in the drive surfaces. You could also just make a flat surface with the same boss dia. up above the boss and include that in your drive. Then I'd use a combination of containment boundaries and depth limits. Lose the rgh flowline tool path. If you need to rgh the corners some, just double up on Waterline or SF Contour. Should be faster, or at least more efficient.

Go here and grab the Surface Finish (Step Over) Calculator. http://www.1helical....ol-calculations EX: .125 ball at .004 Step over across a horizontal face will produce roughly a 32 micro. Of course as the slope changes, the finish will as well. (Yup, I'm looking for a calculator that can factor in slope.) "That would be sweet, but if I understand how it works the stepover (distance) will vary as the angle of the wall changes. It would sure be nice for helping to get a grip on their relationship." This is correct and a good rule of thumb for most tool paths. Exception is SF Blend with 3d enabled. This will make some very nice surfaces. A few draw backs with this tool path is calculation time is longer, and geometry with radical changes in wall angles or shapes in general will cause the tool path to dip (spike) sharply. IMO, getting a grip on their relationships boils down to deciding on. ..I 'm going to program as many surfaces as I can with one tool path, or I'm going to make the most accurate and/or sweetest looking part I can using as many tool paths as it takes. There's always trade offs. On occasion, when things get fussy, I'll program a parallel tool path at both 0 and 90 degrees (or tilt it to flow with the surfaces) just to cover all the bases, from a accuracy and finish stand point.