quote: Can't you already set the toolpath groups to change automatically? I don't use this, so I can't say for sure. Config>toolpath manager>NCI file and set from there. If you can set the Toolpath Groups to add the program number to machining operations automatically I'm not aware of how to do it. If no one posts if this is possible I'll try tomorrow with the steps you posted above. Sure would be nice to be able to do this.

Why not give the user the option to assign it automatically or manually. When you create new Machine Groups you gain the advantage of being able to automatically number your machining operations. The problem is that you end up with a WCS problem... so much for the other method because the problem this method introduces negates the benefit. As I said above I sent a file to our VAR this week who was kind enough to send the file on to CNC Software. CNC Software looked at my file and confirmed the WCS bug I complained about and assigned it cnc00040738.

I should have said automatically. My bad. With a toolpath group as you add machining operations it doesn't automatically add the program number to the machining operation. If you define the Machine Group first and tell it the program number as you add machining operations to your toolpath group it automatically adds the program number. To sum up I'd like Toolpath Groups to automaticly assign the program number like Machining Groups do.

One of the ways to reduce dependence on Machine Groups would be to allow Toolpath Groups to be assigned unique program numbers.

quote: The WCS changing is not a bug. It is supposed to change to the WCS used on the machine group chosen. The idea is to have one WCS per machine group. WCS not changing properly has now been logged by CNC Software as cnc00040738. [ 11-13-2008, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: NeilJ ]

quote: The red arrow of doom! There were a lot of complaints in X2, is it the same in X3? Yes.

Like I said I can't get my WCS to switch properly. Our VAR sent a file to CNC Software this morning documenting this.

quote: The WCS changing is not a bug. It is supposed to change to the WCS used on the machine group chosen. The idea is to have one WCS per machine group. I have one WCS per Machine Group. When I change to a different Machine Group the WCS does not change to the correct WCS for that Machine Group and yes I put the red arrow in the correct place.

quote: I don't like the way it occasionally changes your WCS too. I don't think the WCS should ever change unless you do it. Happens all the time to me. I can live with the occasional crash or the occasional restart when things start to act funny for no reason. I can even live with the rare reinstall but I have a very hard time accepting this kind of constant erratic behavior with the WCS chainging at random and the red arrow jumping all over the place. I don't feel there is any excuse for this.

quote: I have a vista SP1 install with X3. Recently the status bar dropped out and I cannot seem to get it back. Tried repair install no joy. Any help? Had the same problem with X2MR2 SP1. Called CNC Software. We tried a bunch of things none of which worked. Finally had to uninstall Mastercam completely and reinstall. Of our 5 seats we have only had this problem once.

quote: It would be great to see Mastercam use 2,4, or 8 cores to process Verify, However verify is more than number crunching. Graphics card and such make a huge difference as well. Has someone checked to see if MachineWorks (The component used for Mastercam verify) to see if it supports multi-core processing?

[ 10-30-2008, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Moderator ]

? [ 10-30-2008, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Moderator ]

[ 10-30-2008, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Moderator ]

Certainly couldn't hurt. I think 3 and possibly 4 64 bit CAM applications running inside of SolidWorks would apply just as much if not more pressure if it turns out they really have much faster toolpaths as 64 bit CAM applications. What's just as interesting to me is the balanced development work that is going on with 3 of the 4 that I know about. All have already done or will be doing major work to their user interface in their 2009 release. The enhanced user interface is a huge reason many decide to run inside a CAD program like SolidWorks. There are a lot of downfalls to doing this but they don't seem to get discussed and users who take this route dismiss the many possible liabilities. Many in the CAM industry seem quite happy to not have to spend any money updating their dated CAD and since most CAM users accept this...

It's a fact that having a non-modal CAM program saves lots of time. I've seen tests done by a Mastercam competitor that prove it. If you like modal than by all means use Mastercam in a modal way. There is nothing in a non-modal CAM interface that forces you to save lots of time instead of opening and closing dialog boxes all day long. [ 10-29-2008, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: NeilJ ]

quote: Now if Mastercam were a 64bit application vs just being compatible with 64bit hardware and operating system.... my hourglass might be able to take a well deserved break once in a while! My guess is you will see multi-core support long before you see Mastercam as a 64 bit application.

quote: Back on topic: The processing times using the Cimco-hsm add in for MCX are awesome. They will use all cores on your machine. Since the MCX HST toolpath are an implementation of the Cimco HSM I should think we shall see the same great processing times when HST is updated . How about we examine this toolpath processing situation in detail. 1. It's the major focus of at least 3 CAM programs that run inside of SolidWorks that I know of. 2. Two of these programs already have FBM and target Mastercam. 3. History shows us that it's what is in other CAM programs that have success converting Mastercam customers that gets the focus of CNC Software. Based on this do you think that CNC Software's major focus right now is on using multi-cores / faster toolpathing? I certainly do. The problem is that these 3 other programs have the pedal to the metal when it comes to upgrading their user interface and making it non-modal. Two of the three have already made major progress in this area. This pole is basically a done deal and I think the person doing the poll knows this. This leaves making Mastercam non-modal in the backseat as other programs begin to make this their main focus.

quote: BTW Jon, all of the features you mentioned are in NX CAM NX CAM has balanced development. CAD hasn't been neglected and neither has graphical toolpath editing which recieved a major update in NX6.

quote: That's not to say that I don't see any value in what you listed, I just want faster toolpath calculation and verification. What's needed is balanced development. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how adding FBM to Mastercam is balanced development. FBM is a new feature. Old problems like modality and multiple processor support needed to be addressed first in my opinion before something like FBM was added.

One company that I won't mention spends all their time on toolpaths and nothing else. They use to be Mastercam's main competitor. Now they are little more than a shell of a company. The modality in Mastercam badly hurts productivity.

First person I know of to discuss modal CAM programs on Usenet is myself. Only person I'm aware of that discusses modal CAM programs on a blog is myself. http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/

What would be just as productive for many users is making the user interface of Mastercam far less modal. With a machining parameters dialog box open, make a change and regenerate and save your toolpath. With a machining parameters dialog box open be able to verify or backplot and when done automaticly return to the machining parameters dialog box. With a machining parameters dialog box open be able to modify or add a chain and when done automaticly return to the machining parameters dialog box. With a machining parameters dialog box open be able to add or modify a WCS and when done automaticly return to the machining parameters dialog box. How many processors is Mastercam being less modal worth? [ 10-29-2008, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: NeilJ ]

Yes, but I'm very worried that I will have problems with Solid Edge with ST and SolidWorks with a gaming card. I'm thinking about going the safe route with this card. I'm aware that it's expensive, it's a rip-off to the tune of $600, and that it's basically the same card as the 8800 GT. http://hothardware.com/Articles/Nvidia-Qua...-512-MB/?page=3 "With these raw specifications on paper, the QuadroFX 3700 has a little less raw rendering horsepower compared to the GeForce 8800 GT lineup. However, while the 8800 GT looks stronger on the specification sheets, the QuadroFX 3700 has a few unique features, including stereoscopic output support, support for Quadro performance drivers, and ripping-fast OpenGL rendering support compared to the GeForce 8800 family."

quote: My new Dell 2408 WFP monitor showed up Monday. I'm so happy with the Dell 2408 WFP that I purchased a second one last night. It's not even close quality wise to the HP's we have at work or the Samsung 245BW's I had at home. Now I need to determine if I can get away with a gaming video card for Solid Edge with ST and SolidWorks like one can apparently do with Mastercam. Saw Mastercam X3 at a Haas open house this week running on a gaming video card and the quality blows away the Quadro FX 1300 cards we are using at work.