For that Swift pdf... less flutes, greater chip clearance = steeper angle, makes sense. Quite a variation of values for the different materials being cut. Those appear to be some aggressive angles. I'm going to check these cutters out. Whats your take on them? We typically use generic 4 flute cheap carbide, ALTIN, with most steels so my thoughts are the numbers in the PDF should be a safe starting point Thanks for the links. That PDF goes into the vault.

Same thing here, huge shortage of data so I wing it at 50% feed. 1.5 deg. for all steels works safe so far for helix entry. Helix bore, .006 to .03 depending on hole size and tool being used. Lately we've been eliminating start/entry holes altogether and using a ramp throughout the entire pocket, 1 way, and ramping the exterior as well using a depth value, not an angle and tool life has been great. So far, Mr. Rush has posted the closest thing to an actual formula that I can find on the forum. It's a topic that does not seem to get enough coverage anywhere. Indexable Feed mill ramp and helix: Page 13, 14. HTTP://www.mitsubishicarbide.com/mmus/catalog/pdf/b/b028a.pdf I'm still looking for good data to use with solid carbide e-mills. Anybody care to post some links?

"There is no legitimate reason to move the tool outside the countainment boundary" LOL, approximately 50% of what I would like to do would include the outside function. (Think boundaries in SF Contour). Don't want to machine a certain area? Stay out of the middle instead of off the ends? Select outside.

Looking to import a solid? You are not going to get a history tree. File. Same some. Select the solid. End the selection. Save as type: From the drop down dialog box, select a file type that Inventor can work with. Para-solid, Stp, IGS, whatever you can import into Inventor. Note that if you choose a para-solid, an options tab will become available that will allow you to produce a file with a version level that is compatible with your version of Inventor. If it.s 2d only, DWG and Dxf formats are available. Looking to export from Inventor? MC will open the native Inventor file and likes para-solids and step files as well. Personally, I'd avoid converting the file to anything and just open the Inventor file. One less chance of a translation error occurring.

"Took off the fixtures and ran an indicator on the pallets center bore (where the spud slip fits) and it is running out from .0008 to .0045 on 3 different pallet bases. Is this normal? " I've never worked on a Mori HMC but my guess would be NO. Mazak pallets had a ground center hole that received a plug for locating the center of the fixture, as well as the side pads. One thing to check. With the variation from pallet to pallet you're seeing, I doubt pin alignment would be the lone culprit. Are the alignment pins in the machine parallel to Z? Are they on center in Z? Rotate 180. and check. Are they symmetrical in X? Check at 90 and 270. I've seen parts / fixtures gets crashed and throw the pins out of alignment in the machine. A cheap fix was to break the fixture free and re-align it to the new pin location. LOL, pretty ignorant solution as this forces every pallet to be tweaked. Other guys change the WPC for the machine, another bad idea. If lucky, sometimes the pins can be loosened then tightened up again and will fall into place. Other times they need some persuasion. The pallet that checks out by .0008, does it repeat at .0008? How about the others? Chips under the pallet on the pads and in the pin bores can wreak havoc on repeatability as well. Keep 'em clean.

"This workaround will get me there, but it's a pain. Since I'm rotating this part with the 4th axis, I have to create containment boundaries AND planar surfaces for each operation set." I don't know if I'd call this a workaround, perhaps creative thinking. I've been using both planer and non planer dummy drive surfaces for quite a while with many different tool paths to get the motion I want. From what I've read somewhere on the net.... X7. Containment Boundary Improvements. When selecting chains for Area Clearance, OptiArea, Rest, and Optirest toolpaths, you can now specify chains to restrict tool motion.

I'm not post editing guy nor am I familiar with the Tiger IV control. Perhaps try this: The MPFAN post can handle this, not sure if your control supports IJK output... Settings, Machine Definition, Control definition, Arc, set the XY, xz, yz planes to Delta start to center. This should produce IJK's for your output. Play with the break at quadrants, 180., or Allow 360 arcs. For more detailed info, search the forum as the instuctions above have been covered repeatedly in greater detail than I provided.

That was a nice XP system. Probably one of the best deals they had going. They are gone now.

"is it possible to get a nice flowing toolpath like the wireframe when using surfaces?" Absolutely. SF Contour cuts in z depth increments. If the faces adjacent to the radius are on an angle, you'll never get one continuous cut when starting the tool path. It will only flow nicely when 100% of the surface area is at the same z depth. Use a boundary, include the adjacent faces for drive surfaces and do not use a check surface if this is the case. Flowline and check surfaces don't always get along. You may have to trim an area around the radius, equal distance all around, and include that in the drive surfaces. Check your surface normals and make sure they all point in the same direction. SF blend, 3d enabled sounds like a viable option. If possible, let the tool enter the slots and use depth limits. This should stop / limit the hop. HTH, MCM.

Already discussed here. Must be a double post. http://www.emastercam.com/board/index.php?showtopic=72028

Holy cow! Four ports in under 4 minutes, gobs of stock coming out of there as well.

"I want to ask the question "Why secondary software?"" For the same reason we have multiple tool paths of the same type in MC. Where one may fail, the other shines. My favorite tool path for roughing in MC is peelmill. I get the exact entry, exit, cut widths I want, where I want them, in the order that I want them but it won't do 3d. Opti this or that, great for 3d and reduced programming, but I find myself occasionally asking WTF is that? The same can be said about individual tool paths in other packages. I've seen HSMWorks, Cimco HSM performance pack, Volumill, and even Surfcam at times produce better tool paths in certain situations. Another forum member is having trouble with an injection mold. Tool paths fine with V9 through X2, Same part in X3 forward is giving him crap. Like wise with MC, where the others might produce less than stellar tool paths, MC may come through for me. IMO.... Volumill will usually not leave a thin walled standing post as it cuts a given area, where as HSMWorks and Cimco will work their way towards that last piece, then snap it off before it machines it off, hence more code with the Volumill as it tends to loop across the width and HSMWorks prefers the longest cut, less code and less time. Why care? Because if I'm machining aluminum, I don't worry about the piece breaking off and causing damage. In tool steel, different story. In the short time I used VM, it appeared to do a better job with tool steels but also required more screwing around to get what I need. So now what. Let's say I have a shop that runs mostly aluminum. I bought VM, found out I like HSMWorks better. Buy the HSMWorks and now I have a choice on what to use going to into a given situation. HSMWorks. I love most of their tool paths for 3d work except MORPH BETWEEN CURVES, very similar to MC's SF Blend (my favorite MC 3d tool path) but with less than satisfactory results. I don't like the tool library and there seems to be too much screwing around to set things up in HSMWorks relative to MC. Manipulating geometry in SW can be awkward compared to MC. Working in SolidWorks, I get better surfaces in short order and it's nice not to have to bop back and forth between apps. Secondary software? How about a seat of MC4SW. Best of both worlds. My point is, having a secondary CAM package that can compliment your existing software is always a good thing. A lot of this depends on the programmer as well. Does he have an engineering staff with good modeling skills at his disposal or does he have to wear multiple hats and do it all? That being the case, having a good mid-level CAD package available on demand is an attractive option. Throw in some integrated CAM with that CAD and now were rockin.

Waterline is the highspeed equivalent in MC. Hybrid will do some of this as well. Chris, i got the same results in SW, vertices, knife edges and so on, hundreds of them. I couldn't even get decent patch or boundary surfaces in it. I did recieve messages about the export/import tolerances but didn't get a chance to mess with them.

File name on the ftp?

Cool, keep us informed. _____________________________________________________________________________________ "All things are changing, and we are changing with them." "The die has been cast" "Silence implies consent'

"Will that cure processing errors to turn it into a solid?" Not necessarily but depending on the geometry, what can be done is you take all the faces and create closed volumes, turn those into a solid and create a new base to do a boolean extraction. If the bad faces were facing out, they will be absorbed in the new volumes and literally ignored during the boolean remove. If they were facing in, or too screwed up when the new volumes were made, you'll still have issues. This has worked for me in the past with about a 50% success ratio. Pretty much just rebuilding / reverse engineering the model.

"To spend 20-30 minutes watching the hourglass on the screen while a toolpath regenerates only to watch it fail is a source of real frustration for me sometimes." I agree, and 20 to 30 minutes can actually be a short time in some cases but is it pure tool path failure or a situation where you get what you asked for, IE: garbage in, garbage out. Most of the time it's usually me that makes the error but then again, some of the options can be pretty vague and or sparse in there descriptions when selecting the help button. The irony of this is that I decide to explore something new, leave the Mastercam defaults alone then walk away PO'ed because there's no way I'm going to run a toolpath that looks like that. More tool tips should be available as your creating the toolpath, in a vernacular that's suited to the layman such as select this option to reduce cycle time, that option to improve finish, this option doesn't work and so on. Even a notice that something stupid is about to occur would be cool. That gets old quick, so the ability to shut them off needs to be there as well. While were at it how about making the HST defaults actually use the data from the tool. I set up a 1/2 bull e-mill with default stepover of RGH XY 12%, stepdown of .96 in my tool library. Set my tool settings to pull data from my tool and use tools step peck and coolant. Start an Opti this or that path and what do I get? 37.5% step over, .75 step down, a helix radius of .25 and skip pockets smaller than .55. The entry feeds/speeds dialog box is checked by default and has a ramp spindle speed of 0.00, oooh boy! Why does MC choose to use a step down of .75 when I specifically set my tool up so that it uses a depth of .96? Try this now with 1/8 bull e-mill whose tool settings in the library are 10% rgh XY and .50 Z stepdown. Select opticore, change no settings and the exact same lame defaults appear in the transitions page and cut parameters. Once again, MC decides to use .187 as a step down when the tool is set up for a step down of .50. How can we make this actually work? 1) Make the toolpath actually use the data from the tool library for step overs and step downs in the Optipaths. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's my reasoning for creating new tool libraries, this e-mill, that type of steel, these settings, and nothing but these settings. Wouldn't it be nice if I could go to the manufactures website, grab the data and set-up my tool in the libraries and it produces a usable toolpath right away? Is that asking for too much? 2) Transitions... How do you use an 1/8 bullmill, make a helix radius on entry of .25, the same default as the previous tool, and not leave a f-in post standing up? MAKE THIS VALUE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOOL DIAMETER AS A DEFAULT. 3) Skip pockets smaller that .55. Really? Does that give my 1/2 emill room to do anything? What about the 1/8 emill? This tool could easily go into a much smaller area and still have room to generate curved entry moves in the tool path. MAKE THIS VALUE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOOL DIAMETER AS A DEFAULT. 4) Entry feeds and speeds. Ramp feed of 50. 50 what? IPM? Percent of tool default? Why is that default even turned on and with that setting? The help file states: Overrides the feed rate set on the tools page, and uses the specified feed rate for entry ramps into the cut. I guess we calculate the toolpath, 30 minutes later we post code and find out. Can't forget about the zero spindle speed on entry default. MAKE THIS VALUE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOOLS ORIGINAL SPEEDS AND FEEDS DATA FROM THE LIBRARY AS A DEFAULT. DON'T FORGET TO... Click here to print this topic.

Kevin, I agree, it does appear that tutorial #4 review exercise seems to be missing some dims. Even the upper and lower rads at X cl appear to be different sizes in the book. I'll mess with this more later.

Nah, it's there, you gotta do some fishing. Yes, Mill Level 1. At system origin, create a circle with a radius of 1.125. It's shown in the drawing as phantom lines. Now, create a line at 150. or -30 deg about 2" long above and to the right. Put it anywhere in the vicinity. Now create a line parallel, be sure to turn on the tangent function and select the line and the circle with the 1.125 rad. Start trimming, break at intersection, fillet, then mirror the geometry and your done. HTH, MCM.

This appeared in another post and looks like a option worth pursuing. Posted Today, 02:02 AM "Create draft surfaces from your boundry, Move them above your cutting levels and add them to your selection Like This Henk van Ommeren PMP Precision Metal Parts Duiven, the Netherlands X6 MU3 Mill3 5AX, Solids

I saw that several years back. I don't think that will work with modern cards.

Friggin' Opera.

"buy a 480 and hack it to accept quadro 4000 drivers.... edit: i know: hobby talk, not business talk" Elaborate. VPU Bios mod?

The link produces a "Could not connect to remote server" error.

Hey. You two up above. Stay on topic or get a room, this is my thread. For those interested in following along: X6 Mill Level 3 book. Tutorial #4, Op 3 Opti rest with a 3/16 ball. Compute remaining stock from: One other operation. Use remaining stock as computed. Tool path size = 1738.1K, time = 51m:47.05s. WTF. Compute remaining stock from: One other operation. Adjust remaining stock to ignore small cusps =.02. Tool path size = 817.9K, time = 27m:55.90s. Excellent. Compute remaining stock from: One other operation. Adjust remaining stock to ignore small cusps =.05. Tool path size = 745.5K, time = 25m:28.63 Awesome. Compute remaining stock from: Roughing tool. Can not adjust for cusps. Tool path size = 556.5K, time = 18m:3.56s. Too chunky, but it actually did a better job at roughing the handle area than all the other settings. Changing step down/ over / up settings and sacrificing some cycle time might just yield more satisfactory results. I'll spend more time messing with this. Compute remaining stock from: Cad File. Epic fail, way too much goofin around for me at this time, after selecting the saved STL from the first roughing op. All of the above will require a semi- finishing routine no doubt. In place of Opti rest, I set up a SF contour routine with Helix, shallow and flats enabled, one way cutting. Size was 214.1k and time was 1h, 17 min. This took considerably longer that opti rest but produced much closer to near net finish, probably not requiring a semi finish path. It also took longer to set up the tool path parameters in order to avoid collisions and required more skill where as Opti rough was pretty much point, shoot, get er done. IMO, which route to take is a matter of preference and contains too many variable to determine the best outcome for all machining scenarios. For all that helped, I thank you as we got some excellent results with these tweaks.