No. Somebody EDM'd that stupid form in, as seen in the drawing on the left., on 1 sample, and drilled a hole through on another. Thats just clearance at the bottom. I had to throw something in there as did not specify a rad. Their getting a 1.5 MM e-mill through there and that's that. I'll sf contour the whole form.

Thanks for your reply. Sorry about the delayed response. Levels/ layers 9 - 13 were created by me just to represent the part. The model in that file was created from the views on the left. If you model the part with just the slots then rotate it 15 DEG. pos., then create a plane at 38. DEG.(128. DEG. Pos.) from the front, you get a nice accurate surface. The problem for me then becomes that it doesn't look like any of the print views ( I'm not so sure the drawing is accurate) after those last cuts. It also doesn't look like any of the samples I have, which are worn out. I'm thinking heck with it, I'll cut one and send it off. I need 30 of them and don't want to do the whole batch till I'm sure it's good. Thanks for your time, MCM.

I've got a part I'm working on, nose cut die, that specifies on the drawing, instructions for using a dividing head to achieve a compound angular face. I have never seen a print like this before and have no clue on how to set this up. The print sketches merely look like a pictorial representation. I made a solid based on projected lines and suspect it's wrong. I projected some lines on the model to measure the angle and it appears to be incorrect when rotated 15. Deg. It Should be 38. Deg and it checks 44.98 Deg. Maybe I'm doing something wrong here. Comments ? Anybody care to take a crack at this? Any and all help would be appreciated. If you succeed and your feeling generous, I need a file thats in .DWG, para-solid version 18 or X2 geometry only. File on FTP = Drawings\ Nose cut die.dwg ">

Wow, I just read through this entire posting and thought I would add a few comments. Some of these may be redundant. This site is not maintained by CNC software, it's made available through the good graces of In-house Solutions. The forum itself is free and is a good place for tips but does not include or imply any liability or obligation on behalf of eMastercam or the forum members themselves . Go to the store and purchase Mill level 1, level 3 , Solids, and Design tutorials. For under $300. bucks you'll have enough material to keep you busy (or interested) for quite a while. Several weeks ago, a incident occurred in another post with regards to training material. I was going to post some links to free training material in the educational forum that would help everybody and possibly make the redundancy of the training questions less frequent. I realized that this would also be links to direct competition of In-house and thought it would be just flat out wrong. Do a few searches on the INTERNET, and in no time you'll find legitimate material everywhere. Speaking of searches, there is a search function in the upper right. You've asked some very basic questions that quite a few of us might even say were fundamental to all CAD/CAM applications. Those questions can be answered in short time using the search function. Try and limit your questions to a single topic. All of us have been where your at now. Over the last several years I've witnessed and experienced this time and time again. Employer purchases a seat of MC, or any software for that matter, and maybe a new PC. Expectations are high. Now the fun starts, No training material. It's irresponsible to say the least, that somebody would fork out over 5 digits and not spend a few hundred bucks on training material. So now, the employee gets assigned with the task of figuring things out for himself . This happens with machinery and measuring equipment just as often. Aggravation starts to set in and the employee starts cursing the task at hand. The forums now become a place to vent frustration. Ok, to answer one of the questions about creating curves and receiving multiple entities. When 2 faces of a model touch one another, your going to get geometry from both of those edges when you select create curve on all edges and have selected both faces. Hence the duplicates. If the model was not water tight or just poorly created, you may end up with even more geometry that overlaps or doesn't appear to make sense. 1 curve may be .0001 longer that the curve from the adjoining face and it's in the model, not necessarily an MC issue. My preference is to import the model as a solid, with edge curves created at the time of import. This seams to limit the number of duplicate entities relative to importing surfaces. Keep in mind that importing crappy models into any CAD/CAM package can give you poor results. I then move the solid to a separate level. No need to create a copy of the solid, just moving it to a new level and turning that level off allows easier selection of the lines and curves you need to work with. Once I decide on what geometry I need to use for chaining, I'll copy just that geometry to a new level so that I don't have to look at or dodge all the entities that I don't want to use. I never delete any of the geometry created on the first import as I may have to retrive this again for any number of reasons later on in the programming process.

Sorry I didn't get back with you sooner, f-in comp issues. Everybody else has stated it already though. The part I used was 10' in dia. I set my gap to 10." Care full, big gap settings can cause issues that don't jump at at you untill it's too late, study the tool path in back plot and verify as this technique does not care about tangency or plowing through adjacent surfaces. Verify and check for gouges if your not sure. Start Z- based on half the tool +.001. Not a custom tool either. I defined it as a slot mill with .124 corner rads, .25 wide. Off topic some here, but setting a negative Z, that is to say below the top of your surface, (could very well be a positive number as well), for your start point, and using larger gap settings works well with quite a few different scenarios, not just undercuts or negative draft or contour tool paths. My preference when I want a pristine path is to extend the surfaces up above the part by a distance greater than the tool rad, then set Z values with depth cuts, this way, the tool will start at Z0.00 and not turn that first cut into a Screaming Demon. I often model parts with the intent that I'm going to machine it and could use the extra meat in the model just for this purpose, so I'll create 2 models, structuring the build of the actual part so that the machining model is easy to create. I'll do some surface offsets and extends while I'm in SW at the same time for machining purposes.

Check. How the @#!$ do I upload a pic without it being an attachment or link to a hosting site.?

sf contour, gouge checking disabled. undercut (Small).bmp

The part appears to have an inward draft. I don't know how successful the boundary would be. Is your tool defined as being able to under cut for that distance? Got enough radial clearance as in a loli pop tool or key seat cutter and so on?

Double post.

Cap the part.

I've looked for waterline settings that would arc on and off the part all the way through the tool path instead of transitioning like it does. Can't find 'em. Does anybody else know if Waterline is even capable of this? I often rough a part with SF Contour if I have a cutter large enough to cover the stock at each Z level. I don't like the way the linking transition in the picture on the right looks. Elliptical or looping back 180. deg.? Is this an illusion?

"Why complicate things. Chain the arc only contour and multi pass. Done. Might have to play with the number of passes a little but simple and fast." I totally agree. Simply put, use partial chain or delete the line altogether. 2D contour will do it the easiest.

The sldprt file is missing from the .zip. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it if you get a chance to upload it again.

Your welcome.

Finishing: I look at the smallest geometry from a radius stand point and try to use as cutter that's at least 1/16 smaller so I can generate some arcs and smoother motion. Roughing: The biggest cutter I can find that will reasonable get most of the part roughed out. This really is an open ended question as the terrain of the part often influences cutter choices.

Yes. Run a contour tool path set to 3d with comp off using a ballnose em., no lead in or out. Make sure you have your arc filter turned on. Save the tool path created in back plot to to a new level. You should now have much smoother geo to work with. I don't have accsess to X5 , perhaps some one else could be of more assistance.

Dumb solid? Try, solids, find features. Works kind of iffy. In situations like this, if I can't get a fill, any type of surface, that doesn't mess with my cutter path, I'll turn to SW and create boundary surfaces.

"LCammer, What if you use the profile that describes the faces you're trying to cut and sweep a new surface then use the new surface as the drive for the flowline toolpath." "Not in Mcam, you would need an add-in like MoldPlus to do that." Huh? It looks like those faces are parallel to Y axis and the back face is vertical. If so, a simple extrude, then delete a few faces should do it, no sweep needed. From the front plane , trim the surfaces to the CL (y0.00) and create new curves that are parallel to the front at z0. If you know what the geometry is, use that instead of splines. Move or project those entities to the back face plane, or simply recreate it starting at the back face, front plane, then create your sweep path or simply extrude it. Recreate it using both of the entities selected at the same time (profile = 2 entities). Now trim those faces to the front face that is sloped and you should be good to go.

I used to bore shop made extensions for long tools in this same fashion to help minimize run out.

This might be a dumb question, but wouldn't the ring ID grow smaller at the same time due to expansion? Perhaps not at the same rate , but still?

"There is not a way to save geometry from a backplot in MC4SW" Big bummer. This is one of my favorite features in MC.

I have a coworker who uses a post for a Dynapath (Odd control isn't it? Looks like something off the original enterprise). He ask me to look at a file, bamm, my tool bar wigs out. Looks good minimized, but full size, it takes on his layout. No matter how many times I reboot and reload my back up, it fails to stick. Here's how I fixed it. I have my .mtb file saved and write protected in a different location so this may require some effort for you to get back to where you want to be. Right click in an open area in the tool bar, select customize. In the lower left corner of that window there is a reset icon, select it. This will bring back the default mastercam layout (.mtb). Close out then restart MC. Your tool bar layout will be as fresh as a new install. If you already have a named .mtb, you can just reselect that as a default start up. If you don't have a back up .mtb, configure it the way you like using the customize menu. Now save the layout with a new name. yada yada yada.mtb. Go to Settings, config, Start/exit, toolbars, then select the icon that looks like a file cabinet and select your saved file. Green check mark and your done. Restart MC and all should be good. Remember to back up your saved .mtb to a new location.

"I wouldn't call MC4SW a replacement for Mastercam, but for the right kind of work, it is very useful." I agree, there are some features in MC that just can't be beat. IMO, creating and manipulating wire frame geometry is much easier and faster than in SW. Perhaps I'm just partial to MC because it's where I started but the drawing functions in MC seem to be more suited to the manufacturing community than the CAD community, if that makes any sense. In SW, you need a dam plane for everything. 3D sketches are a bear to work with. Just moving or rotating geometry is a PIA. No doubt about it though, the modeling tools in SW just blow away what MC does. Now that I have your attention, how are the calc times in MC4SW? How about verify, any smoother or faster? This just sounds like a good combo with a lot of potential.

MC4SW X5MU1. I just came across this. The older style tool paths were incorporated into the software. Anybody mess with this yet? What do you think? http://networkedblogs.com/jb7nH Ignore the nonsense replies on the link. Does anybody know if the machine def's from stand alone MC work here as well, namely MPMaster?

SW extrudes non planar chains. Variable rads are easier. Lofts are easier and much more flexible. Extended edges follow the curvature of a face on all edges. Filled surfaces that are tangent to all faces and look sweet. Repairing or rebuilding crappy models is much easier. The list just goes on and on. Simple models I do in MC just for the speed advantage. If I see something that looks like it's going to be tough, or even speculative as I'm building it, SW right away. One huge advantage is all the add on apps across multiple disciplines that you can purchase for SW. It is what it is. I've never seen a claim by MC that it competes directly with any CAD app. The real test would be to have a CAD guy who has no experience with either app try to make a model. I'd bet the MC noob would get there first.