I projected a curve onto a surface and used the surface for the tool axis control and followed the curve. The curve is basically three arcs, one on each end 1" radius 45 degree of arc length, and the middle is a large radius arc (almost flat). I guess I didn't show enough code to show the tool entered the cut a C180 B-45ish, rotated only B as it cut across the part to C180 B+45ish. It then retracted (not high enough) and stepped over to the next line. Before it fed into the cut it reversed B and C, with out the unwind/retract the post would normally call for when reversing B and C. What I am trying to figure out is why didn't the tool just run back from C180 B+45 to C180 B-45? I browsed through the code before I ran it and was distracted by a line "(p_reverse_incut ------------)" in the code. I missed the C flip. I got done cutting the part now I'm just trying to learn how not to do it again. Thanks for the help! Brian

I am cutting a foam pattern with a Thermwood 5 axis machine and when I posted this code it initiated a unwind without retracting the tool. The toolpath I used is Curve 5 Axis, it is a custom cutter that just has to follow a line to cut a profile into the part. G00 X14.3867 Y31.0298 C180. B-45.7304 . . . . G01 X7.8847 Z-5.6122 B45.7308 G01 X7.1686 Z-4.9141 F2100. G01 X2.1562 Z-0.0279 G01 X2.1578 Y27.895 Z-0.0263 C0. B-45.7247 F6500. G01 X7.1697 Z-4.913 F2100. G01 X7.8857 Z-5.6112 F25. Luckily it is just foam, but i can live without the crescent shaped gouge in the pattern. Normally i would see a unwind / retract move in the code. It is posting out with the Post I got from Thermwood, it doesn't show in verify or backplot in Mastercam. Does anyone have an idea how I can avoid this? I don't know why it would need to unwind to return to the starting position of B-45.7304. I have added to the Retract distance to hopefully avoid the gouge. Thanks, Brian

Jay, We are looking to contract out the programing, I think I can make it work without having some one come here. It will certainly be a learning experience for me.

It looks like I am going to be overwhelmed with work in the near future and we would like to see if anyone has any extra time to help with some programing. I would like some one to take our geometry and then create toolpaths that I can then load on my machine and post the NC code. The stuff we are working on are pieces for making bathware patterns, so they are somewhat large (our machine has 2 5'x10' tables with 3' of Z) We cut styrofoam 1/2" undersize, then coat the styrofoam with a machine-able putty, then we cut the putty .1" oversize for roughing, then -.005" for finishing. We use X5 MU1 router level 3, multiaxis, with solids, our machine is Thermwood M67 5 axis router, and for creating geometry we use Autodesk Inventor, I can bring the model into MC and then send the MC file out. I have no idea how to handle payment for the programing time so if anyone has any suggestions please let me know. Thanks, Brian

It looks like I am going to be overwhelmed with work in the near future and we would like to see if anyone has any extra time to help with some programing time. I would like some one to take our geometry and then create toolpaths that I can then load on my machine and post the NC code. The stuff we are working on are pieces for making bathware patterns, so they are somewhat large (our machine has 2 5'x10' tables with 3' of Z) We cut styrofoam 1/2" undersize, then coat the styrofoam with a machine-able putty, then we cut the putty .1" oversize for roughing, then -.005" for finishing. We use X5 MU1 router level 3, multiaxis, with solids, our machine is Thermwood M67 5 axis router, and for creating geometry we use Autodesk Inventor, I can bring the model into MC and then send the MC file out. I have no idea how to handle payment for the programing time so if anyone has any suggestions please let me know. Thanks, Brian

I am having trouble using STL compare with the STL files I have created, below is the screenshot of the STL file in verify. You can see that there are many surfaces that are missing compared to the screenshot of the stock that has been cut. I have tried making the STL file several times with similar results, the file has surfaces missing and when used to compare the missing surfaces show that they are oversized. The geometry was created with Inventor and imported as a solid and then the surfaces where created from the solid. We don't have the solids option for Mastercam. The STL file shown using verify. The verified toolpath showing the surfaces that should be there. Does anyone have any idea how I can get this to work? I have used verify before and not had this problem, this is the second file that I have really had a problem using the compare with. I know someone will suggest using Vericut, I cannot get justification to purchase solids for Mastercam, I don't think I can even dream of getting Vericut. Besides this is a part of Mastercam that doesn't seem to work properly, I have sent one file in to our re-seller and he sent it off to Mastercam and I haven't gotten a satisfactory reply from them. Brian

Ok, its been a while since this has been discussed, I am now having an issue with this using X5, I have tried some of the suggestions listed and will try the others. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

I've had the same trouble, cuts right through the surface like it wasn't there.

Have you found anything causing these errors? I am having the same issues.

I have been having this issue with X4 MU3 with high speed rest roughing ops.

Ok, I gave it a try with a new file, I didn't have any trouble with creating lines until the lines started getting long over about 100 inches long. Here's what I did, I rotated my view to an odd view and then created a new plane and saved it, then I made that view current, I set my z depth to 85 inches and drew a polygon. When I analyzed the chain it looked good, so I tried drawing a larger polygon and then the chain would not analyze properly. I don't know why a larger line would be harder to snap to the end of, but this is what I'm seeing. Brian

I can try, I'm working on something else right now, I'll let you know when I get a chance.

Thad, That is what I would think too but they are straight line segments drawn one at a time in 2D at a Z depth of 85 inches, they just didn't connect to the end of the previous line segment when drawn. Tyler, Thanks for looking at that, I have switched to creating a multi-line boundary and then sometimes having to trim the ends closed, the trimming sometimes would work to join the ends together on the file I sent you and sometimes not. Originally I projected the wire frame to the z depth I wanted and then used it for the containment, and I had the same type of problems, but some of the projected entities where splines which I thought caused the problem, so I switched to drawing lines for containment.

Tyler, you should have mail.

Tyler, I've already worked around it, but I'll see if I can re-create it.