Isn't Meghan his daughters name?

Started on v5.5 myself. Don't think I still have the install disks for v5.5, but I believe I have v7 and/or v9 installs. Pretty sure toolbar across top started in v9 (didn't use v8 so not sure on that), rarely used it. Loved the menu on the left side. V7 is where association started, and boy did that take some getting used to. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it also v7 where they started controlling lead in/lead and CDC in the toolpath parameters? I remember in v5.5 I had to create geometry needed to turn cdc on and off (wasn't bad before association because you could just delete the geometry once you created the toolpath) and extend the geometry so you didn't plunge or rapid into stock. I also believe it was v9 (could have been v7, it was a long time ago) when MC became stock aware on lathe only IIRC. It was neat because instead of having to create every DOC when roughing a forging (so you could trim every line to the stock profile so you knew you weren't rapiding into stock) MC just used the stock clearance you set it up with and wham bam thank you ma'am you were done. Those early versions required you to really know what you were doing and you had to mentally keep track of stock shape. File ext. was ge3 up until v9 when it changed to putting version number (or a derivative) in it; ie mc9 was for v9., mcx was v10. That lasted for a version or two, then they started using mcx-*(2nd digit of version number). Ohhh the memories.

I've done a couple different serialization routine, but never set it up so any one of the numbers repeats. I've used this code to skip portions of a toolpath that only had to run every so many parts. #500 is the frequency I want to run this path (so I want it every fourth part) #500=4. #103=1. #501=#501+#103 IF[#501LT#500]GOTO100 which I put in front of the section I want to skip. Then after the section that I want to skip I put this; #501=0. N100G0Z.1M9 code in to reset the counter. Shouldn't take much to alter it to do what you want. Basically you'd use this to skip you counter/ increment routine. I have 1 machine that I had to get a little fancy with because it was moving before it would complete the math for the start point of the next number and it would engrave on an upward slope. Not good. I also have an engraving macro where you can insert the height of the numbers you want and it would automatically scale up or down (mostly down because my default value size was 1") amongst other things but I never got enough time on a machine to prove it out 100%. Ir ran through a simulator ok, but that's no guarantee.

Are you trying to turn CDC on at the same time? If so you have to make sure your machine definition support CDC on arc moves. There are a few other things that will prevent arcs depending on what you're doing. If you have cutter comp. in MC set to control, your arc radius value has to be greater than the radius of the tool. Double check that you have a value in the arc sweep box (just below where you put in the arc radius value). Missed that a few times myself.

I had the same problem when I went to 2017. If you have a nethasp you need to edit the nethasp.ini file for the network settings required. Don't know what would cause it if you only have a local hasp. Try uninstalling then re-installing. Before re-installing if you're comfortable with it is delete any registry entries involving Mastercam 2017. Had to do that before to get problems fixed on previous versions as well.

I agree newb, but sometimes I cannot get purchasing or our engineer to go back and ask questions. Granted I never asked anything on this part, because of history with customer and what we've done in the past I never thought to. This particular customer isn't to bad on dealing with questions, but we have one that if you ask something they get defensive and just downright pissy. If it's not perfectly clear or can be interpreted multiple ways I always prefer to ask, I just typically don't have direct contact with the customers.

With how the customer is acting I agree the new process is still iffy at best, but he signs my paycheck so until otherwise told this is how he wants it done. The print shows a drill point, but it does not specifically call out a drill point and it's not a flat bottomed hole. If it had been a flat bottomed hole we would have given them just that. JP, that's the argument I made with our quality dept. (who originally got the NCR from the customer) and my boss, and they don't exactly see it that way and they wont push that back to the customer. I'll do what ever the boss wants in the end, but some times the customer is not always right. But if we're not going to stay perfectly within the drill point profile (although the new method is closer), it's no better than what we did originally in my book which irritates me almost as much as the boss doesn't see it that way. We're ISO as well as AS9100 cert. and I'll admit it's been a long time since I've read the specs. Not saying I disagree that the parts deviated from print, but there should be some flexibility when a feature profile is not specified or controlled by a note on the print in my opinion. Then again my opinion isn't always worth much.

Newb, my biggest issue is the customer is quoting Y14.5 which is a drafting/ how to interpret print spec. Doesn't control manufacturing process at all, which we cannot seem to get our customer to understand, but in the end they are the customer. The new method the boss and engineer came up with still violates the drill point profile (not as much as what we did originally) and we haven't verified with customer if it's ok or not, but the owner wants to make this the standard for this customer. We have done the same drill, linebore, and ream process on previous parts for them and they never mentioned anything (maybe it was because I did the programming and I didn't go as far beyond the print dimensions as the other programmer did on these parts) so it didn't draw the attention. I wish our machines could hold +/-.0004 roundness so I could helix bore or just circle mill them, but they wont. The newest machine (an Akari Seiki which I hate, so they go and buy a used one this spring which is just as bad) is 4yrs old and it might be able to if I feed at 1ipm, but even then I doubt it. I can't get the powers at be to realize that better quality machines would save a lot of time because we wouldn't have to use so many boring heads. From the factory they wouldn't mill a 1/4" wide slot +/-.002 on width without cutting it 3-4 times at 5ipm. We had a factory tech. (not distributor) and a Fanuc tech. here for 2 days to adjust the machine so it would circle mill a Ø3" ID fit round w/in .0015 at 30ipm. At the time our 2 Fadal vertical mills were 10yrs old and they would do that all day long. Enough ranting. I was hoping somebody could give me something I could go back to customer with on how Y14.5 is applied and it doesn't control manufacturing, but that may not exist. All of our customers draw drill points for all of their holes, and those that need/want a drill point always specify it on the print. Thanks guys.

Sorry guys, was on vac. all last week. Location tolerance is TP of .003, size is Ø.1293/.130. Depth is .15 +/-.01.

I completely agree John. What I haven't mentioned is that our customer is shipping the parts back to us (for another altogether different reason) with a new p.o. and print to rework the parts to a change Honeywell has requested. Our customer is also going to change the hole detail on the print to match what we made so their QC will accept the parts. Which their engineer and sales dept. agree that what we did will not affect the part.

Spec, we pushed back a little with our customer on this and they won't budge and keep referring to the ASME spec. It's mostly their quality dept. pushing back.

I agree jl. Unfortunately we didn't get the end users (Honeywell) print, we got our customers print which was redrawn from Honeywells print (no idea why as we already know who their customer is). Our process engineer has actually contacted Fullerton (where we get most of our reamers) about having them grind drill point angles on reamers and they advised against it. Something about the 45º lead helps center and control size of the hole. They said they will grind a 118º if we request it, but advised against it. With the hole being blind and if I had extra room for chips I would normally use a straight flute reamer, but with no/very little room for chips I need spiral flute but they don't seem to be as available in as many different sizes as straight fluters without custom ordering them. I would appreciate the info. Thanks.

The holes aren't flat bottomed. The print shows drill point which is what the customer says is required. I have no problem meeting the customer requirements, just wished it made more sense. Like it was mentioned ASME Y14.5M spec is about how to dimension prints correctly and print interpretation and really doesn't pertain to manufacturing of a part. The method our process engineer and owner came up with still violates the drill point profile but they're going to submit it to the customer as a preventative action. There's a lot more that goes to this but you don't need to know that. I was just inquiring how you guys deal with tight tolerance holes when the print only shows a drill point. I don't see how the ASME spec controls how to manufacture the hole. I was hoping someone would know of a spec or something that would prove my point. If it was specified as flat bottomed I know I can't drill deeper. but if it only shows a drill point and there's nothing preventing me from going a little deeper I don't see why we can't. Granted the other programmer that did these parts went .1 deeper with the drill and .05 deeper with the linebore than the dimensioned called out on the print (which is way deeper than I would have gone), and even the customers engineer says it wont affect the parts function, but their quality dept. is raising a stink. Live and learn I guess. Have a good Thanksgiving guys. I'm on vaca. next week and plan to spend it all in the woods hunting with my son.

How do you guys manufacture blind holes with tight diameter tolerances? We drill and line bore slightly deeper than print to make room for the chamfer on the reamer and chips. One of our customers just rejected some parts because of the small multiple depths in the bottom of the hole. They quoted us Y14.5M about the depth, but it doesn't control manufacturing of a feature and says nothing about going slightly deeper. The part is for Honeywell and we've done hundreds of Honeywell parts for our other customers and we've never had a complaint about how we manufacture blind holes. Just looking for opinions and what not.

Thanks guys. As of right now I'm gonna try to get it from a shelf that's cut into the bottom of the hole at a right angle to it. Only issue will be the blends if hole isn't drilled straight. Finishing dept. may have to do a little hand blending, but that's what they're for.

Maybe Tim. If so , I've never seen it called out like that before in 20+ yrs. Hoping to hear from customer this morning.

I've dealt with projected tolerance zone on a hole before and it can definitely make it a challenge, but never seen anything like that applied to a profile. Our process engineer has been out the last couple of days, but should be in this morning so he's going to shoot of an email to the customer. Newb, I was leaning towards what you're thinking until I realized I can get to the bottom from a cutout on another side of the part, so I'm gonna go in with a ballnose from there. Thanks.

There's a note on the print "Trajectory of machined features". Any of you ever seen/know what this means? Looks like they're trying to control/dimension some 3D surfaces,but never seen it done like this before. I've done parts where the grain structure of the material has to be orientated a certain way in relation to the part, but I don't think that's what they're trying to do here. Thanks.

Stewart, the blend doesn't have to be perfect, but the closer the better. Our finishing dept. can do a little polishing easy enough, but the less they have to do the better. I may end up reaming the hole. TL, I have same concerns as you sticking that ballnose out there so far. Reko, Iscar has a double margin Sumocham drill that I think goes up to 8D that I was thinking about using, but haven't had a chance to do anything with this since this morning. Had some IT problems to deal with 1st. Years ago we did a similar job and had an AMEC T/A insert ground with the radius and drilled it in one shot. Worked ok, but the finish wasn't great and wouldn't be good enough for this customer. Just got to looking at the model and the bottom of the hole intersects another larger hole and the reach is under 2" so I think I'm gonna try drilling to size on 1st op. and then mill the radius on the 2nd op. Thanks guys.

Got an aluminum 7075 part that needs a Ø1" hole 7" deep that's full radius at the bottom. +/-.005 on size and depth. My thought is to drill it to 1" (maybe a little under), then get a ballnose made up with cylindrical ground flutes (non side cutting) and finish the bottom with that. Customer is very critical when it comes to cosmetics so I need to have a consistent finish top to bottom. Looking to get other ideas on finishing this hole? CAT40 mill. Thanks.

If the tool is only doing 1 or 2 features before the next tool is called I don't put comments on the tool (I'll put them on our s/u sheets as it's just a few lines). If a tool is doing several features I will put what feature it's cutting into the prg. when it gets to that feature. This mostly applies to our mills and horizontal turning centers. On our VTL's, we cut with ceramics mostly and it make take several passes to rough that feature so when the tool goes to a position so the operator can index the insert (or measure the part if needed) at the next beginning of the next pass I'll put "1st pass to rough yadayada", "2nd pass to rough yadayada" and so on. That way the operator knows exactly which roughing pass he was on and which one is next if he has to jump out of the prg. for some reason. At every M0 in a program (for whatever the reason for the M0) we always put what we call a safe start block. Basically it's just the information you find at the beginning of a lathe tool (tool number, offset, SFM, spindle direction, G96/G97) and we also put the tool change command (some of our VTL's require the M6 others that are turret style do not require it but the prg. has it anyway and the machine just skips it). We do not allow operators to start in the middle of a toolpath unless given permission from the supervisor and the supervisor has to be standing there when doing so. If the operator has to jump out of the program to re-run a previous toolpath they are required to run rapid override at 25% in case they called up the wrong toolpath. On our lathes the only lines that get numbered are the tool change lines, and the controls display that line number which helps get the operator back to the right spot. We've had people jump out of a program, call up the toolpath that was for another tool and since there wasn't an M6 to call up the correct tool they crashed the machine. This was before we implemented forcing a toolchange command on every toolpath. We call it idiot proffing and saving our bacon with customers. Customers don't like it when you tell them you just plowed into the part which means they have to forge another part because the grain was altered because of the impact.

Aftermarket firewall/antivirus. I got the same error when I tried installing X8 last year. Got ticked off and stayed with X7. Got same problem when I tried X9 when it came out. CNC Software kept telling my re-seller it was because I had some type of emulator. I did have a prg on my pc at one point that was an emulator. They being CNC Software said only solution is to re-format pc and re-install everything. That didn't sit right with me as they didn't offer any other solutions and wouldn't tell me or my reseller what MC looks for when it starts. I deleted any hint of the emulator in my registry (or anything I though could be an emulator. Still no go. Long story short, my firewall was blocking the install even though the installation said it completed with no errors. The problem was my software notes the installation location and always blocked X9 from installing even though I told it to allow the install and even changed settings so it should have allowed the install. Only way around was to copy install file to another internal drive on my pc and install it with my firewall off. Been happy ever since. FYI, my firewall, a/v program is Comodo Internet Security.

I put a 2nd internal 150GB SATA6 drive that I had laying around in my tower and shared it (tried having everything on my SSD, but I was loosing space and extra read/write cycles are bad for SSD's). It contains everything in the MC shared folder along with all our MC files. The default file locations and such on the 2nd programmers pc are linked to the files needed in the shared folder. He creates solids, stock models and uses stl's for stock and he doesn't have any speed issues. Most of our MC files are under 10MB, some are close to 20MB, but a few push 100MB as well as stl files that are close to the same size. We both have 1GB network cards connected through a 1GB switch. I do all the IT here so I can do as I want as long as it doesn't cost money. The only hitch I have doing it this way is when going to new version of MC and setting the defaults on 2nd pc MC wants to copy the contents of the local shared folder in to the shared folder (and overwrite existing files and you can't say no or it wont change folder location) so I have to upgrade mine 1st, update all of the files in the shared folder, copy them to another location, change defaults on 2nd pc and allow MC to do what it needs, then move the files I copied back to their original location. Seems like a lot of work, but it's not really. You have network issues (could be configuration issues) and no amount of ram or a SSD are going to help you there. You could try for NAS or a specific MC server, but then you still have to deal with another O/S and security permissions. Even on a 10/100 network with CAT5E cable you shouldn't have much of a problem.

Dodger, to get it to work correctly yes you have to have a separate tool. The cutting edge orientation has to be the same the only difference is spindle direction and put it on lower turret. MC needs tool to be on lower turret to cut on X- side of center. I've never had to prg. a tool to cut X- so I figured MC would know enough to reverse spindle because it was X- side and it knows original spindle direction. Orientation is the same because when on X+ side my tool is set up to bore dia's, and when on X- side the tool is going to cut the OD of a boss.

To skip long story see to Cliff notes below . I 1st used MC in late '96 on version 5.5 (on windows 3.11) so I've used a lot of different versions over the years. I could tell you stories about me hating new functions. I haven't been programming continuous since then as I've gone back to running machines on and off, but I would say I've used 11 different flavors of MC. I also find myself using the same old toolpaths to do everything, but the guys here have gotten me looking at new ways to do the same old thing esp. JParis who I 1st met when he worked for S4A our reseller. A lot of my problems when I 1st started using X was myself not doing things correctly although the way I was doing them was how it was done in previous versions. Just like Windows (remember the old BSOD), CNC changed how things worked/functioned so they could improve/add other functions. I know the whole if it ain't broke don't fix it routine (which I still spout out once in a while), but I believe that if CNC didn't change things we wouldn't have any of the new toolpaths and we'd still be using ver.9 menu or even better pre v.7 when your toolpath operation wasn't associated with your geometry. I've yet had X9 crash my system (only had it for a month) but X7 would send it south once a week or so. It's like Win7 compared to '98, '98 was good, but boy did it crash often and it was common practice to re-install it once a year (I did same with XP as well). Win7 has been the best, most stable O/S I've seen since 3.x which had very few functions so there wasn't much to muck up the system. Cliff notes: I still use contour for 90% of my toolpaths and I can do a lot with them, but once you learn how to correctly use new toolpaths you'll realize you're missing out on a lot. I don't do any 5 axis and very little 4 axis so I can't say anything about them, but the only big problem I have with X9 is I have dual screens with diff. resolutions and MC won't maximize to full screen from taskbar. Every software has issues.