At least once a week I have a problem where Mastercam refuses to Copy or Move Entities from one Level to another Level. The only solution is to close Mastercam and restart where Copying or Moving Entities between Levels again works like it should. This problem occurs in Mastercam X2 MR2 SP1

quote: Neil, MU1 is 25% faster. My X3 benchmark time is 4:00 and my X3 MU1 is 3:00. The i7 920 CPU is under $300 and will overclock past 4Ghz so go ahead, spend! If you're going to spend the money on a core i-7 motherboard and the matched DD3 memory you have to buy to go with it I figure you might as well spend the extra money on a better core i7 chip as well. It's not like Mastercam surfacing toolpath and solid Verify doesn't badly need the extra processing speed.

quote: Has anyone used a core i7 for mastercam yet? Core i7 seems like the best way to go for Mastercam if you're doing a lot of surfacing toolpath. I'll be putting a system together with the top of the line Core i7 chip in a few weeks. I doubt I will over-clock it.

quote: MSI x58 Platinum quote: Thoughts Please?? http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3471&p=13

I get the exact same error when using Verify on .stl files. I've turned down the Tool Tolerance and the STL Tolerance to .001 and this seems to help. I had to reboot the computer to get Mastercam X3 MU1 to Verify properly when I had this problem. I continue to be very disappointed with how the MachineWorks component works in Mastercam. It's far better in X3 MU1 but it's still not good enough with .stl files compared to other products that use the exact same component (MachineWorks.) and have better reliabilty, performance and more features. I'm beginning to feel that the graphics engine and the Machining Operations Manager in Mastercam need to be totally rebuilt from the ground up because CNC Software appears to be patching them constantly. This approach doesn't appear to be working very well and they both are a constant source of problems for me.

I'd be curious to know what the time difference is between X2 MR2 SP1 and X3 MU1 on the benchmark file using the same machine because it feels like a big difference between the two to me. Perhaps I can now hold off on dropping a grand on the new top of the line core-i7 chip.

quote: neil, can't you just go into your "machine group properties" and check "assign tool numbers sequentially"? this way as you generate your mcx file the tools are numbered properly. It's already checked. Doesn't help when I modify a program and wish to renumber my tools.

Any estimate when tool renumbering will work? I'd like to move all of our 5 seats to X3.

quote: Having this information would be incredibly helpful as it would aid greatly in determining which version of Mastercam to use for the particular type of work at hand since all versions as of late are severely broken in one way or another I'm still using X2 MR2 SP1 for all 2 1/2 axis mill work. For surfacing work I'm using X3 MU1. Graphics performance in X3 MU1 blows away X2 MR2 SP1. It's not even close. Surfacing toolpaths also seem much faster and more robust in X3 MU1 and Solid Verify / .STL files in X3 MU1 also have far better performance than in X2 MR2 SP1.

quote: You know how I feel about blogs. Change can be good. Blogs can be good.

Start a blog.

quote: I'd like to see a list of bugs which were fixed like we used to get in the past, not a list of the bugs I find. I wonder why this was eliminated.

quote: and YAY for the tool renumber fix ^^ Wish I could say the same. Doesn't work here.

You could always start one. In X3-MU1 I'm still not able to renumber tools properly. Are you?

quote: Did the tool renumbering get fixed? Still doesn't work for me. Happy to provide the file it doesn't properly renumber the tools on. On the bright side the general graphics performance in X3 MU1 for solid Verify and for something like Analyze Dynamic is significantly better than X2 MR2 SP1.

Look forward to trying it, Chris. I'd like to move from X2 MR2 SP1 to X3 if possible.

quote: plus the fact that i had to create sketches to get the toolpath to behave the way i wanted it to instead of just picking solid edges( especially chamfering). Yup, big waste to time. One of the things that most CAM users don't seem to realize is that when you have very powerful CAD and CAM together in one package it's possible to eliminate the need for chaining in many cases and this can really save a ton of time! It's my opinion that in order to have great CAM you have to have powerful fully integrated CAD. Lots of good suggestions on Selection and Chaining improvements needed in Mastercam have been posted in the Mastercam Enhancements Forum. Check em out if you haven't already and maybe add your thoughts.

quote: yes Camworks has solid professor for training and it's not bad at all. that's how i got most of my knowledge. I don't even know you but I'm sure glad your back! quote: just didn't like the way the software was setup. I don't either. quote: and the surfacing algors did not work too well. but then again it could have been me!Supposedly the surfacing toolpaths are getting much better. Doesn't matter to me, like you I don't like the way the software works. What I really don't like is the amount of time you have to put into the Access Tech DB to make the software do what you want. FBM should be an option to use not a forced mode that's your only choice.

quote: Does Cam Works have high quality training videos? Sure does with more being worked on right now. quote: I keep hearing that Mastercam is missing that. You've heard correctly.

quote: Are you guys (in a pocket routine) able to see your path being shaded AS the tool moves along? I am. quote: Not the whole pocket at once, not a single line at a time but AS the tool moves along it's path like a ball point pen leaving ink on the paper as it rolls along? Yes, I am able to see this. quote: If you answer, please take the time to draw up a quick pocket, apply a tool to it and back plot watching for how the shading is displayed and not just rely on memory. I did exactly as you requested. I did not rely on memory.

quote: one looks like a sideways "S" the a line with a dot at the end. "Line with a dot at the end" is Run Mode. For what you describe you want to be in Run Mode. quote: On eth Backplot contrl press the botton that looks like a drill This means Display Tool. Works fine here, Phil but I've had the same problem and it required me to reboot the computer and refire up Mastercam.

quote: This gets close but as stated above, I see the fully shaded or not shaded at all."Phil, Have you tried shutting down your computer and rebooting? I often have to do this when Mastercam X2 MR2 SP1 starts acting weird.

The Dynamic Chaining option in Mastercam requires geometry to be added first for Lead-In and Lead out if you wish to add Lead-In, Lead-Out when you initially create the chain. If you add Lead-In, Lead-Out in a machining Parameters dialog box you are adding Lead-In, Lead-Out after you have chained and this amounts to a waste of time. Even more time is wasted if you decide you need to edit your Lead-In, Lead-Out because there are no "Machining Markers" displayed on the screen which can be accessed at anytime without opening any dialog boxes.

Mastercam has no concept of "Machining Markers". Lead-In, Lead Out in Mastercam is usually created after Chaining has been done when you're in a machining Parameters dialog box. Lead-In, Lead-Out should be done while you're Chaining not after and it shouldn't require the user to create geometry if you wish to add Lead-In, Lead-Out while you're initially Chaining.

You can't do Lead-In, Lead Out initially when Chaining unless you create the geometry for Lead-In, Lead-Out first in Mastercam. Adding geometry for Lead-In, Lead-Out is a total waste of time. You have to raise a dialog box when using Dynamic Chaining in Mastercam. All the above amount to unnecessary and unneeded steps. Adding Lead-In, Lead-Out after you Chain in Mastercam or by forcing the user to create geometry for Lead-In, Lead-Out so Lead-In, Lead-Out can be created initially when you Chain amounts to an approach that wastes time.