If this is a Fanuc thing I don't think its the same on all Fanuc's, we used to have Robodrill's at one place I worked and we have a Daewoo where I am now and we always had the M5 in the same line to keep from waiting for it to spool down to zero before going home - which is what we got with code like the second example you posted. That said I have no idea why different machines would have different behavior.

First off just want to say.. never have I ever seen someone who was so obsessed with comments.. way too much trouble if you ask me .. if operators cant read code and figure it out they should find a job making burgers.. hell the burger guys will probably be better paid before long the way things are going.. but I digress.. I am not sure, but I don't think you can do what your trying to do like your trying to do it.. I think a lot of the problems you are running into is that you are attempting to make decisions use if / then / else statements where the variables you want to check are not instantiated.. you need to make sure you check for them in a postblock where they are actually there .. sometimes that means some extra steps to follow your data around so to speak.. Probably would need to create a variable prior to that line in ptlchg_com postblock and use it to identify that is where you are coming into pfxout from.. So basically set a variable at the beginning of post processing camefromtlchg_com = 0 so you have a default value of 0 (false) then when you enter ptlchg_com you set it to 1 (true) like follows before you have your call to pfxout camefromtlchg_com = 1 then inside of pfxout you could check for your flag if camefromtlchg_com = 1 check to determine what pfxout would output - cause now your in the pfxout postblock and can test variables to see what it would output.. based on the result / and your desired bahaviour, you could either set a variable to indicate output later, and/or output whatever extra comment you wanted.. then once you got back into ptlchg_com you reset the camefromtlchg_com flag like camefromtlchg_com = 0

Cool.. figured it would .. glad I was able to help..

Ok so looked into this a little.. FIRST OFF -- if this screws up your system in any way .. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE... THE FOLLOWING ASSUMES YOU HAVE SOME CLUE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND ARE COMFORTABLE MODIFYING REGISTRY ENTRIES - IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS THEN DONT DO IT -- YOU CAN SCREW UP YOUR COMPUTER IF YOU MESS UP!!! If you are brave enough to continue.. BACK UP YOUR REGISTRY!!!! BEFORE PROCEEDING!! Ok so now.. sorry for all the shouting but I really don't want to be yelled at later for trying to help someone.. From what I found, the following key is created in your registry when you run the applet .. and enable post debugging.. [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CNC Software, Inc.\Mastercam X5\Post Debugger\Settings] "Enable Post Debugger"=dword:00000001 This makes me think .. although I'm not able to test it .. that if you were to create this key manually.. (after first backing up your registry of course) that you could manually enable post debugging.. You would have to run regedit then browse to [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CNC Software, Inc.\Mastercam X5\ then edit and 'new key' Post Debugger then edit and 'new key' Settings then new DWORD then rename that DWORD to Enable Post Debugger then finally right click on it and modify its value to 1 I believe that should enable the post debugging option.. even without having the applet able to run..

I would guess your probably out of luck.. According to this link from Mastercam's blog.. X5 wasn't even supported on Windows 8 .. guessing Windows 10 is really a stretch.. its surprising it runs at all really and you probably are going to have to be happy with whatever you get.. I don't have windows 10 so I can't test it on a separate system.. but if someone does maybe they could test to verify its not just you..

I am pretty sure he was kidding about the what's a datum comment.. or at least I sure hope so if he is going to be programming a CMM..

If your control definition is setup correctly then it should only use inverse time when doing work when cutting with rotary movement.. In your control definition there look for the Feed -> Mill page.. then on 3 Axis make it be set to Unit/min under 4 Axis .. set Linear to Unit/Min and Rotary set to Use Inverse.. This should make it so 3 axis and 4 axis rotary positioning work will run regular feed per minute mode.. and full fourth work will use Inverse Time.. At least that's how mine is setup and we use one post for 3 and 4 axis plus full fourth work..

Machines usually have a parameter that specifies the allowable "acceptable error" between endpoints when using a R value rather than an IJK and depending on how large a value is in the parameter you can get wildly different results on different machines, this is why IJK value will consistently create a better hole. When you use an R value rather than an IJK value you are letting the machine calculate where the center of the arc is in relation to the endpoints, when you use IJK you are specifying the center point of the arc as well as the endpoints .. that's why you get a better result.

Yeah totally didn't catch your meaning on the first time through.. But yes.. I have thought many times how it would be nice to be able to have items specified as 'non rotating' For instance in our bigger machines we have probes heads that don't rotate at all .. and it would be nice to be able to model them to check clearances.. For the job I did with the RAH I modeled the head as a separate item and moved it around the part into all the different positions to verify clearances, have had to do it with other things as well.. Hopefully we get that in Mastercam 2099 lol

Verify worked good showed the tool at the correct angle and in the correct position, don't know about machine simulation since we don't have it setup here. I have wanted to setup machine sim, but Mazak won't give us models without paying and management here won't pay Mazak for the models. I started making models so I could set it up myself but eventually just scrapped the plan. Honestly I don't think anyone in management here that makes the decisions regarding money has the understanding of machining necessary to make informed decisions - it's why we also don't have Vericut even though we often do full fourth rotary work and proving out programs can often be a 3 hour heart attack. Gotta love having a part programmed to do profiling in full fourth at 80 or 90 inches a minute that you get to prove out with your hand on the e-stop. But yeah anyhow verify looked exactly as it cut in the machine.

I started that comment with "For a lot of materials thread milling is the way to go if you ask me" .. in that context I stand by what I said.. I didn't mean to imply thread milling would always be faster than tapping.

So I guess I should be pretty happy that I was able to modify my 4Axis post for a VMC to include a Alberti Dual angle head and use it to circular interpolate holes simulating a 5th Axis. I was pretty impressed with myself at the time, but really I had no idea others struggled with it so much..

We do thread milling as small as 2-56 and have gone up to over 12 inches in diameter. On one particular part we have done thousands of 2-56 holes.. in 15-5PH Stainless - For a lot of materials thread milling is the way to go if you ask me.. done right its as fast or faster than tapping and a more reliable process.

They are generally pretty helpful - although I have to admit - their idea of time sensitive often does not line up with the one I am used to being in a job shop.

FYI - if you setup your options in your control definition, you can make it give post errors to a log file .. then you would have seen lines like follows.. The options are on the Files -> Mill tab at on the bottom left of the page.. 19 Nov 2015 10:18:00 AM - RUN TIME -OPID(12)- Only single-axis rotation is allowed! Angles may be incorrect. 19 Nov 2015 10:18:00 AM - RUN TIME -OPID(13)- Only single-axis rotation is allowed! Angles may be incorrect. 19 Nov 2015 10:18:00 AM - RUN TIME -OPID(14)- Only single-axis rotation is allowed! Angles may be incorrect. 19 Nov 2015 10:18:00 AM - RUN TIME -OPID(15)- Only single-axis rotation is allowed! Angles may be incorrect. 19 Nov 2015 10:18:00 AM - RUN TIME -OPID(16)- Only single-axis rotation is allowed! Angles may be incorrect. This is what led me to diagnose the holes being angled around two axis's ..

If you create the hole axis's by hand with only X rotation, then yes I believe your file looks good.. although since it wouldn't post as is I wont guarantee it . - in other words.. still check twice ..

Yeah it followed the hole axis, I would say someone needs to determine if that angle in Y is req'd or not .. it seems like a very small amount, so depending on application the hole being straight in Y might still be within tolerance given the clearance on the through hole.. but as you say .. that's up to your engineering team to assess.

I am checking out the file now.. Your holes are 5 Axis holes.. not by much but that is your problem.. Looks like your holes are angled around Y by about .17 degrees - some less than that.. but that's the issue..

David Collen's method is what I was going to suggest but I couldn't figure out a way to explain it.. its definitely the most efficient way to rough the most stock.

OK a couple things. That Error usually comes up when you don't actually have a fourth axis, because it wants to rotate your rotary table, but you don't have one configured in your machine def. or alternatively it can come up if the plane it is trying to rotate to is impossible using the current machine definition. So first question is, do you have a fourth axis machine setup that has a rotary table configuration with the rotary setup on the X axis of the machine? Assuming you do have the machine def. correct, are the holes only rotated in one direction? If the normal for those planes are tipped in two directions - around X and around Y then Mastercam will give out that error because it cannot rotate that way. So you would need a 5 axis or special fixturing to align the part. Then on to the planes.. First, if you're using one work offset based on centerline, you should have no offsets for your origins in your new planes, all three numbers for offset(in view coordinates) should be set to zero. Second thing, if you want it to use one work offset for all the paths, you then need to assign a work offset by checking the work offset checkbox and then setting the value to 0-5 (for G54 to G59) When you go to set the work offset you will probably get a pretty annoying dialog box whining if you should reset all for this view etc.. to keep things simple you would probably want to choose the option something like update work offset for this toolpath without changing the view / plane or something along those lines.. this way it doesn't screw any other paths up behind the scenes unintentionally. If your having any issue creating planes it should be relatively easy.. Creating the planes should be easy assuming they are only angled around X.. As someone else said just rotate your top plane.. First look at part from the side.. and on a new level create some lines along the axis of the holes.. those should allow you to measure the rotational angle off of zero.. Then look at part in top view and rotate around X to get that angle - then name and save current view - I suggest naming them something that is easily identifiable later. If you do it that way that view should then correspond to one hole.. then just do that for all the holes .. Anyhow .. hope any of this helps.. as rstewart said.. if you could post the file it would be a lo9t easier to diagnose..

I haven't used multiaxis drill so I cant really help with that too much.. But it seems like what you said makes sense.. I would think you will want your depths and such in incremental though if you don't have them that way already.

If you are working from the model, then you should be able to make your depth, top of stock and retract amounts be in incremental, then make your clearance something high enough to clear everything. The only thing backplot doesn't really show correctly is how your spindle moves in relationship to the part. The reason is because Mastercam backplot shows the spindle as if it was able to move in any direction, but in your machine the spindle is locked in the vertical position. If you watch backplot in side view you will see the spindle rotates around the part while the part remains stationary.. in the machine that's not how it works, but if you want it to look exact you need to cough up the dough for something like vericut where they come in and build a simulation that's exact based on your machine's kinematics.

When is it hitting? Is it when it goes to do the helix? or when it goes to move in rapid? What is your clearance height set to? From the backplot it looks like its not that high.. since its all using one zero (I assume) then your clearance height will need to be high enough to clear the 'highest' portion when it is rotated up to position. Mastercam has issues with backplot and verify sometimes with showing clearance moves as they would actually happen in the machine.

Assuming the relationship of the part is correct relative to the centerline of the rotary it should be good - ie assuming it matches the way it is positioned in the machine.. then all your coordinates should work

I know this may sound like a pretty insane idea, but have you considered calling Mazak and asking them?