haha precisely... *sigh*

If you set it to something like 8 just watch when you put the slider all the way up! your verify could be sitting there for hours, but the quality does increase drastically and it is variable by the slider

sure, if the machine has any common sense to it and does what the software is telling it to based on a set of 'standard' expectations

It's also very common in robotics. the more flexible a machine is, the more points of redundancy there are. Because no direction is technically 'better' to the machine, and it doesn't actually know that your part is 'there' (it's just looking at lines of code) it decides to move in one direction vs. another which is why the cutter went through the part. look at it as a challenge in that if you can solve it mathematically once and for all you will be a rich person

the workpeice should just take whatever is in mastercam. the enable for Workpeice is in the Verify along the top menu

organic as having few flat surfaces, no real definable pockets etc. hrm looks like you're right - I would just change the z-height to start a bit from the top. toolpath is completing the surface there even if we deselect it so it want's to machine over it. you'll either get retracts over it, or it'll want to machine it so best just to adjust the z-height

Frank, if you click on the checkmark beside "stock" in the simulator again it will go translucent. and then make sure you have 'Workpiece' enabled

That's what I usually do yes - it's hitting the top of the tab because I lazily selected the whole part - you could just select the faces you want instead, you can't figure out what we used as containment because we didn't hybrid will just automatically use the outside of the part as containment. you can always add one on if you want it. Hybrid doesn't work in every case and isn't always the most efficient but it tends to work great for mixes of flat/sharp. Sometimes you get the tool travelling down and up though (as evidence in the rads of that part) so it depends on the materials/tooling you're using. For organic-type shapes it's great, and it's my new favorite path.

throwing in my hybrid 2cents, not sure if you like the looks of the transitions HYBRID.MCX-7

any way you can post a part bob? hard to tell what opti-rest might be having trouble with. maybe try calculating it with a smaller stepover/tolerance first until you get something working / close to what you want - and then tighten it up.

still want that delete?

Hello my luggage

Got rid of the thread because it started to get on topic about a certain person who has no interest in civil discourse - nothing against the posters here sorry. There's another 9-pager thread that is roughly the same topic that can probably suit the same purpose

If you're not doing mold work with mastercam the verify being faster and able to handle much bigger files without crashing is a huge improvement to people. If people are happy with something they almost never create an account on the forum and start a thread about it (some people who already have an account do). So mostly here you hear negative feedback, but useful none the less. One thing that I don't understand is why there isn't a user interface for changing <PrecisionFactor>1.0</PrecisionFactor> (from the XML file... mine is now set at 2.5) the slider changes the precision but there is still artifacts that are way too large for almost any cutting work. you can accurate zoom, but without knowing being able to see where the problem is due to the triangulation, what's the point? I would rather run the verify 2x as long, and do other work in the process and only have to check it once, rather than be zooming in and out of regions trying to find my problem. Maybe that's just me??

I get what you guys are saying

drive surfaces isn't there - have to reselect the part as check surface and then it works out. not sure why it doesn't recognize it right away. I *do* know of applications of this where I don't want it to automatically collision check based on the drive surface, but it would probably make more sense if that was defaulted and then you could turn it off

check the tool axis control - is it set to center? you might have to set an additional collision rule for these. turn one on, select flute/shaft, retract along tool axis, and collision check against drive surfaces

That's a good point - I use them almost exclusively for rest roughing (which I use almost all the time), and every other toolpath I use for 3-axis stuff uses multithreading so I don't mind too much if I have to regen everything If you have to change something 5-stock models back don't you have to then save out a new STL regardless after you re-verify? and while re-verifying you couldn't really be doing much else

there's an XML file called MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml if you open that in notepad, there's a section <PrecisionFactor>X</PrecisionFactor> I have mine set to 2.5 and things look great now. Why this isn't something more visible that you can change in the interface is beyond me, but hope it helps

stock model has been great for me in X7, programming from huge STL files

ROn - can you use the stock model for this operation instead of saving STL files?

that's a smooth and creamy toolpath right thurr

Now that I open it in X6 I can see it's not a dirty path anymore, and I pretty much just re-created his path

not sure if you'll like the direction of motion *edit: if I attached the file it would help\ *second edit: After actually reading the initial posts I see it's the 90 degree transitions that are the problem, sorry! I assumed it was the transitions between the 90 degree wall and rad. that file still has 90 degree turns but you can use it as an example of a consistent hybrid path PA45-AGMR-1_MOULD_SURFACES_TR.MCX-7

Yeah especially before we had hybrid. Did a mold yesterday that hybrid finished beautifully with one path, but it had draft. Organic-shaped molds can often get away with scallop, but almost always a waterline/contour/flowline - hybrid can add that in