"Go to Options>Smooth Shading" Hmm, I don't see that under shading options or in the config settings. Smooth shading does ring a bell though. STL tolerance is at .001 in verify options. I did enable stl heal on import, but I figured since the stl was created in MC in the first place, there shouldn't be an issue with it. I'll mess with it more when I get some time. TY 4 the help.

Seriously...the video link above, created by In-House, is excellent. It doesn't get much easier than this. Dozens of thread tool manufacturer's also produce guide lines for using their tooling. The follow links offer up a fee Thread milling program or data. Dig around on their sites for more valuable data. http://www.micro100....MillAssist.html http://www.natool.co...ad-mill-program http://www.vargus.co...t.aspx?pCatId=9 http://www.vardexusa...g_tech_data.pdf

My STL's look so horrid compared to those on the link. Any way to improve them?

Another option, although it's old school. 1st, reduce those lead in / out values. In this case, I typically use the adjust start of contour function, both entry and exit. You may need an arc to smooth things out or you could use those tangent lines created in the second picture, shortened up, as your chain. Create a line parallel to the side face, offset by half your tool dia. and what you wish to use for a lead in value. I'd use .10 as a lead in for a total of .475. You could go shorter, relative to the amount of stock left on the perimeter. Tool path, trim and it will prompt you to select a region on either side of the line. Now back plot and tweak your lead-in values to suit. Thousands of parts? I'd snug it up quite a bit. Optimally, I'd do what Redfire suggested, 2d HST, as this will back feed at rapid speeds and keep your tool down. Still learn how to use the trim function as it works well with all the tool paths I've tried.

Sure are quite a few strategies listed here. I never got into the production/quantity side of things. My suggestion was pretty much an out of the box technique. When I did load more than one part on a tombstone or fixture, it was usually 4 to 6 operations of the same part positioned differently, never the same operation performed at 4 or 6 locations. For angle plates, I've used the gussets at 90 and 270 to hold parts. A shorter tombstone with a fixture plate on the top (looking down at Y-) can yield additional workspace as well.

"54 being A0, 55 = A90, 56 = A180 and 57 = A270." This, IMO, defeats the purpose of programming from CL. (my personal preference back in the days of Horizontals and engine blocks) True C/L being XZ requires only G54 for all rotational values. This require that the parts be located repeatedly at a fixed location known prior to programming the job. This works best with large , single parts that get fixtured or windowed fixtures. Program the A axis on a vertical, and most folks don't change a WPC just because A45. was called up. Same here. Multiple parts on a Tombstone may be different of course, but with a good set-up using C/L and good planning C/l will work here as well. Sure, some on the fly set-ups will be faster just clamping the part down anywhere and establishing a New wpc. Now, G54 is pallet 1, G55 for pallet 2 and so on. X and Z will remain the same in all the WPC's if you do program from C/L just like YZ would remain constant on a A-axis.

Harold, excellent tip. Usually there are several instances of SVCHOST.exe running on my machine. I'll get this issue with tight tolerance setting and the arc filter on. I'll terminate that app., the one with the largest memory allocation, the next time it happens and see what takes place.

JP, I played with it in back plot up to the point where relationships became apparent. It still worked great with no micro lift as a roughing routine in aluminum. The wider the slot, the greater the number of options. Finding that sweet spot for cutter sizes in narrow slots is going to take some trial and effort. Using too small a cutter and you lose the radial DOC advantage and start to see diminishing returns. Too big a cutter, and you lose smoothness in the micro lift, not that the Haas would ever move smoothly but I bet the Makino would. I'm looking forward to seeing what that sweet machine can do with this path. Ample air or coolant is mandatory. The tool will recut and pinch the chips after a while and starts barking. I need more PSI. Chris, I browse your data base about twice a month regardless of what tool paths I'm using. I may not be even programming a path at the moment, just studying the stats. Priceless information there, keep up the good work. I also do not have a finite amount of cutters to work with and I treat the good stuff like gold so I take a powder puff approach to those numbers in the data base until the confidence builds up.

Thanks guys. Sorry about the rant. This path seemed to work better the faster I drove it. I hit 203 IPM at .76 deep and .045 step step over with a SGS emill at 7400 RPM on the Haas. It was the biggest pile of fluffy chips this machine has ever seen developed in around 4 minutes. Our Makino S56 is being relocated and was unavailable. With Heat shrink or hydraulic chucks present, 15k and over 330 IPM seems feasible. Kieth, Sam was in the room as well. Hanging with friends in a Cigar bar, time flies and the drink flows fast and easy. Still paying for it.

Hey G , Johnnie Walker is my advocate tonight and I'm just venting. Nothing personal.

BUMP Grey, thanks for your response. .50 x 2 = 1. 1 x 1 = 1 4-3 = 1 Square root of 1 = 1. Out of 211 views as of this moment, I get 1, that's ONE reply. I've watched some high profile and respected members of this forum viewing this post in real time, not say $h1T. Do they owe me anything? No. Have I participated in other inquiries? Yes, over and above, as have others. It seems that more folks would rather hang out in the OT forum and debate politics, religion, and what tunes you are listening to right now than discuss Mastercam experiences and share them. WTF? I've followed the X6 debut and know that it's less than desirable, and that priorities and concerns may be focused on this issue at the moment. Perhaps I'm just viewed as an A-hole and no one wants to reply, IDK, I'll live with it. I know, lets try another analytical experiment... http://www.hsmworks.com/hsmxpress/ Lets see how inquiries are dealt with for this free version of a competitive product. http://forum.hsmworks.com/index.php#2 Time will tell. Interesting at the least.

I believe it's a combination of factors. Slot width and rounding radius determine the actual amount of room left over to play with. A .73 wide slot minus .15 x 2 (the 40% percent RR I was using), left me with .43 to work with. Subtract the .375 e mill and I only have .055 to work with. Reducing the rounding radius or using a smaller tool dia. will allow for a longer ramp length, but what's an acceptable length?

I did a search and could not find any info on Peel mill and the micro lift settings in X4. .73w x 24. long slot. 3/8 emill. 2d peel mill in 6061 @.56 Axial DOC. on a Haas. I'm driving 2 chains with no rough offset, leaving .01 on walls and floors, .056 Step over. I'm trying to use micro lift and have tried .01 and .02 ramp height with numerous variables in the ramp length setting and IT WILL NOT LIFT UP. I know I could get away with out the micro lift but at a 500 IPM backfeed, I'd rather not have the tool scraping across the floor. (It's a old and sloppy Haas) What am I doing wrong here? Should I be driving a single center chain with a rough offset? How do you guys set the ramp length, percentage of tool dia?, percentage of slot width? Percentage of step over? Is there a general rule of thumb for this? There are other tool paths that uses trochoidal motion that may be better suited for this but I'd really like to get a hold of this one. Remember, it's X4 and I don't have the newer micro lift options. Found it. Ramp length was too large. Still curios about setting this up though. Any thoughts?

C'mon, somebody with a monster machine spit out a 64 bit time from X6.

Down & dirty: This may break a few safety rules but a Mag base on the side of the spindle will get you a quick air blast set-up. A split bushing or shims may be required to lock the tubing. A few strategically place coat hangers to to hold the air line up and pay attention to those tool changes.

Another option would be to create a new solid on a separate level and use that in your stock set-up. Your STL looks like it would be simple enough to recreate as a solid and may even produce better results.

Hijacked for a brief moment. John, I often rebuild nasty intersections in SW using various tools and they LOOK great in SW. Those blends you speak of often freak out when imported. Almost impossible to create curves off the edges or rebuild those surfaces accurately in MC. As a result, I've learned to live with ugly intersections and a lot of slivered faces in lieu of good looking models. In the hands of an cosmetic perfectionist or a noob, models created in NX or Catia can wreak havoc do to advanced surfacing tools. Here's the question: Do you know if MC 4 SW handles this scenario any better being that the native model never leaves it's environment?

Great link. Very nice collection of Mold making videos there.

Best I could do with out a model... Blend rules. No wasted moves on the verticals. Set to Along, 2D, Spiral, .0002 TT, .008 Step over. 1/4 ball cutting a 3/16 rad with .04 over thickness on the floor

If somebody saves this as a solid and can upload it, I have an idea I'd like to try.

Just curious. I believe there is a 3 axis to 5 axis conversion option. Does this work with conventional surfacing tool paths? Since quite a few of the 5 axis tool paths have the ability to output NC code for 4 axis machines, would this ability lend itself to the 3 axis conversion as well? What exactly is 4.5 axis?

In most cases, no specific thread profiles are required for chaining, you merely select a circle representing the major dia. then input the correct numbers in the data fields. You need the correct tool and there are many options available. Google Thread mill to get a idea of what's available. Cutter comp is almost mandatory. Taper thread mills are common. This topic has been covered quite a bit in the forum. Use the search function to increase your understanding of the topic.

You could color mask your chains as well.

Dell T5500 i7 dual quad core Windows 7 64 bit 12GB ram dual Quadro 4000 graphics cards."" You should be much closer to 1 minute with that machine. Sounds like other factors are slowing it down.

Rick, you can get scallop to work in climb only by increasing the the surface area to be machined, lets say by 110%, either direction inward or outward, using boundaries. Then trim the tool path to the areas you want to cut. I trim it just a little bigger than what I need to overlap and get a decent blend. You can also create some dummy surfaces to include in the tool path to help out. This method can also smooth out some of the spikes (sharp moves) that usually arise in a scallop path. SF Blend can easily be confined to small areas and works well with depth limits. This is one of the older tool paths that will do what the HST won't.