Arc data is stored as double, at least when retrieving it from the API http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/643eft0t

under "Cut Pattern" there's a "Projection"  at the bottom of the screen. Change that from Normal to Plane, to Normal to Surface, and set the value very small (0.001" if you already projected your 3d curves onto the surface).  the problem is like JP said, both surfaced are getting your pojection.  The Normal to Surface projection distance can stop the toolpath from 'finding' that second surface.  If no toolpath forms, make your projection distance higher, like 0.005" and so forth

Can you attach your starting geometry.   The distance from your geometry to the sphere is going to affect how it's wrapped. Depending on the size of your laces, the size of the laces and the distance away from the centre of your sphere will have to be proportional to the radius.  

it may still end up waterfalling in the plane direction

Up until last week though it seemed to generate around the same speed as the 'old' path? 

If you want to attach the file click on "More reply Options"  next to the Post button, and then there's a big paper clip.  or go to something likw www.wetransfer.com and then post the link

ah! haha gotcha. 

Tyler,

 

Say you rotate to some obscure Gview and window to trim the toolpath like WorkNC does. At that point in time, somewhere in the bowels of the software, there's a view or plane established (including the size of your window) to trim normal too, no? Why couldn't that be saved and used for re-trimming? I don't know the intricacies, I'm just asking.

 

Changing the stepover was just an example. Any parameter change that would cause the toolpath to become dirty could be substituted here.

yes something like that would work too (I would consider a plane to be a 'geometrical', but I'm just trying to backstep here).    There would have to be an instance of reference for the trim to happen, and that trim could be associative, absolutely - because it could just act as an operation occurring after the toolpath is created. 

In that case, isn't Mastercam's trim associative since if you change the toolpath and you use toolpath trim, the trim is regenerated when you regenerate the path?

I think we're talking about two different things - trimming, and editing. Trimming needs a reference, like a plane, a piece of geometry or some kind of entity to reference. Editing means selecting a series of points, or dictating some points you want to delete.  With editing, the reference could change with the stepover etc. so I don't see how that could be associative in any software without creating a potentially dangerous path

The only way a cam system could make a trim associative is if geometry was used for the trim.  If you change your stepover you would lose your place of reference that the trim happened at  ... bad bad things would happen if the software decides where it thinks you trimmed things

One 5-axis machine with turning capabilities?  or just lose the lathe altogether.  because if the first case is true, good luck!

UR as in Universal Robots?  if so, see attached - just made a really simple program. Can't attach because of the file type, but the contents are:

 

Can you refresh my memory on that setting - I'm not seeing it anywhere in this toolpath

If it's a series of steps without a specific requirement this is pretty easy to write as a nethook/chook.  

ie: if you always open a model, change the color of everything, change the planes of everything etc. 

it's when you start to realize the individual things you do on an incremental basis but you do every time (ie: only change the colors of certain geometry,  change the plane to a different setting depending on where the model is) etc.  it starts to get hard to assign a macro/add on to it.  You also then need to maintain it as versions of Mastercam go forward.

More automated / less flexible

I've used stock model on all kinds of complicated/organic shapes

I think he's saying it's what people say, but you CAN do

This happens a lot - I ask the management what the IT guy has for a computer, and how much CAD he works with.

I think what this means is that X9 is going to become the release we will no longer be able to shake for 10+ years

Just an addendum, I believe this can be considered fixed - I used it today well

Down loaded X8, with no problems. WOOOOO WOOOOO, I like it. I got in the new forum. Not liking two forums, are we losing one or what????

nope, but it can work out

example:

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/

and:

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/forum/9-les-paul/

both have their merits!

Jim, It would have been a whole lot easier if CNC had 'taken over' this forum.

Everyone knows here and everyone comes here.

Too late now but just saying.

much easier said than done - would be less of a forum migration and more of a business merger.. a lot of our training manuals etc. are sold through this site using the same account system, as well as file hosting for samples/tutorials. Also probably not up to Jim, myself, webby, daniel etc.

morph between curves or parallel to multiple curves should do this well. can then swarf or curve 5-axis finish

It probably depends on the type of work you're doing. If I'm doing 5-axis work I prefer surfaces every time as selecting and manipulating them in non-parametric ways is preferable (ie: you might just want to extend or offset a surface) .. whereas for drilling I vastly prefer solids because you can get hole data

The linking violates the containment boundary all over the place which usually isn't that big of deal but it also drags the tool tip right across the top of check surfaces with zero clearance. Pretty annoying to say the least. For me to get good results from it involves creating a lot of extra geometry (offset surfaces, etc...) and it is just quicker and I get more control with the other method. Hybrid still needs work but CNC probably figures it is good enough and has moved on...

I've seen the linking outside containment boundary, don't fault you there - I only use it in cases where this isn't an issue. There's a stock-to-leave value for check surfaces that works on the top of surfaces, maybe not on the 'sides' as they approach 90.

There's too much good stuff in hybrid to not add to it, I don't believe it will be abandoned in favor of a different type of path

I've had really good results with hybrid, wish I could see one of your parts. Blend also works really well in many cases

triangular mesh is very dependent on the tolerance settings so if you don't get exactly what you want right off the bat try a more precise tolerance

Bob take a 3 axis toolpath in a 3+2 close position that will get just about everything you need. Then back plot the toolpath and save the center line geometry to a level. Then use curve 5 axis with lines to control your axis and should be good to go. Can only do this with ball endmills.

 

HTH

you have to make sure to use comp surfaces with this approach, and/or use center tool and no tool comp

morph between curves will try to cut the whole surface/solid face you select, not just stay between the curves. the curves are just used to define the 'pattern' of the stepover. Try using a 2D containment boundary under cut pattern, or set some check surfaces in collision control and tell it to trim the toolpath between gouges, and set your linking parameters for gaps to follow surface