One of the things that gstephens said... quote: An earlier post said something about demos from other software always doing "Mastercam Bashing". One thing Mastercam can do that others can't is stand on its own merits WITHOUT having to cut down the competition.James Meyette said... quote: Nice post g. Very nice post. I found it interesting that you enjoyed gstephens post so much. You agree that Mastercam can stand on its own merits WITHOUT having to cut down the competition, yet when asked to support the "argument" that Mastercam is the right choice, you state quote: The clueless class thinks that software that makes all the decisions for you without any flexibility is a good thing. This class also believes that people that wear V-Neck Sweaters and put their faces on the credits of their software and on magazine advertisements are cool. (PDG is MUCH better looking than that guy. ) This class believes that Mandatory Annual Maintnance fees are a good thing. (Nevermind that the company charging those fees doesn't use that money for development, they use it to keep the lights on because they are barely in business) It also does not bother them that if they decide not to update to the next release, it's going to cost them more in the long run, as a matter of fact they take pride in a higher cost of ownership for the other software packages because it's a "Windows" Program and is fully integrated into the latest wizbang golly gee buzzword brand bloatware. This class doesn't care that Mastercam is in most Colleges, Universities, and Trade Schools where Mfg. Technology is taught, and it can even be found in a few High Schools. This is beneficial because when you are looking for a Programmer, you're probably going to be able to find one. This class also more likely to be sucked in by a good sales pitch as opposed to making an informed decision based on MY/YOUR parts and needs, not some canned demo that the guy has been doing since the dawn of time. You seem to be doing quite a bit of "bashing the other systems" yourself. Just something that made me go "hmmm." Thad

quote: Well I do mid starts all the time. I gotcha. Good call. Thad

Jay, This is interesting. I just checked my settings in v8 and this is NOT checked off, but it still puts in the flood coolant. What do you think of that? Thad

It seems that this would waste a lot of time cutting the pocket everytime you ran it when all you really wanted to do was comp in the profile. Am I understanding this right? Thad

It worked perfectly. Thanks Jay. Thad

Jay, Will Lucky 7 be able to comp it in or just hope the spring passes cut to size? Thad

When I import an operation from the ops library, I can look at the settings before importing and see that the coolant is set to flood. But when I import it, the coolant is set to off. I've compressed the library and still get this. Has anyone else had this problem? Thad

quote: Thanks for the help guys maybe i shouldread the help files a little more often but with this forum i smoetimes forget there and you guys explaine it better Yeah, I know. I just mentioned that so if you needed more info, you could go there and check it out. Or if something happened and you needed to do it again, you would have a quick reference right within MC. quote: by the way thad im in the warren area I'm in Farmington Hills. Thad

I guess you could call it a track ball. This is a spaceball Thad

quote: I just couldn't get contour to step down to the bottom of the pocket then do multiple passes on the floor in one operation Looks like you're trying to combine contouring and pocketing in the same operation. I don't think that can be done. I would finish the bottom with one op and then do a contour with comp to finish the walls of the pocket. Thad

Randy, Copy your "whatever.TL8" and "whatever.txt" files into the proper Tools folder in V9. Rename the TL8 file to TL9. Now compress the library and you're all set. This is spelled out very nicely in the help file. BTW, you'll have to do the same thing with your Ops library if you use one. Thad P.S. Where are you in Michigan?

Do a search for Spaceball. The topic has been brought up before, although I don't think this specific issue has been addressed. There might be some other useful info there though. Thad

Chris, What do you mean by "custom" tool libraries? Are you talking about a personal (or company) library that you create...something different from the tool library that comes with MC? I'm not familiar with MC Lathe, but for our mills, we have multiple tools called the same tool number in our tool library. Certain numbers are assigned for certain tools and then we have some auxilliary collets for whatever else we need. For example, tool 27 is a drill chuck, but in our library, I have about 30 tools all labeled T27...1/4 ream drill, 3/8 ream drill, 1/2 ream drill...etc. When I need that particular tool, I just call it up and my speeds and feeds are there. I'm not sure if this relates to the lathe at all or if I was even any help. Good luck. Thad

James, Why the personal attack on Bill Gibbs? This is the second time you've made specific comments about him/GibbsCAM. Thad [ 09-09-2002, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: thad ]

I decided to start a separate thread so I wouldn't take away from Jammer's thread. Zero said.. quote: If the money does not matter, maybe its time to show them what Mastercam CAN do that the others CANT. I'm not trying to start a sh!t storm here, but can anyone give me some specific examples? Thad

quote: Apparently FADAL didn't think a G95 was necessary! Possibly because "feed per rev" is typically associated with turning operations??? To the best of my knowledge, it's not an additional option that you would need to purchase. I don't believe the Fadal control is set up like that. Either it's a code that the control understands, or it isn't. Thad

I got a similar error when renaming/playing with my post files..."Post processor not found." Although you say you didn't change anything, I would go to Screen/Configure/Files and reset the default on "Associative toolpath prm file." Maybe it's just one of those things Thad

What exactly do you mean by "lost" operations? Do you still have the .mc8 file that you created them with? Thad

Jay, Just wanted to say thanks for the use of your FTP. Thad

Thank you all for your input. Thad

Andrew, I appreciate your thought on this, but I don't know what "Constant Surface Speed for milling" is. I'm living in a 2D world here. Thad

quote: I'm with the others here. It's not a glitch. You need to use a surface toolpath. If you'd liek to have that functionality resident in the 2D Pocket toolpath, you'll need to send in a request to [email protected]. What you are requesting requires 3-D Compensation and Pocket only offers 2-D. James, I'm glad you jumped in here. With another opinion, maybe I can figure out why I'm not getting my point across. What is it about my simple 2D pocket that requires a surface toolpath? If I program to cut a 3" square pocket leaving zero stock and the pocket, when finished, measures 2.867 square (because I used a 1" bullnose instead of a 1" flat bottom), I'd call that a glitch. Thad

gstephens, I don't have the time or the energy to get into a pissing contest with you. Thank you for your input. Thad [ 08-27-2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: thad ]

Andrew, quote: Strenuous day, re-read today and find I was indeed reading too much into the post. Are you in agreement with the rest of the posts though?? I'm in agreement that it can't be cut dimensionally correct by using a simple pocketing cycle. quote: Confirmation that Contour will not do what you are asking. I'm using pocketing, not contouring. But if I were to use a contour to finish the walls of the same pocket with the same cutter, it still would not cut to the dimensions of the pocket. MC compensates for the diameter of the tool, not the actual cutting diameter at finish depth. There is still something that this forum is not understanding, so I'll try one more time. If I have a bullnose tool with a .250 corner radius, the tool will not cut a 1" wide slot until I'm at least .250 deep. Agree? Therefore, if I cut a pocket (or slot) that is not AT LEAST the corner radius deep, then MC is not cutting the pocket (or slot) dimensionally correct, because MC compensates for the dia of the tool (1.0), not the actual cutting diameter at finish depth (.867 dia at .08 deep). I shouldn't need to use a surface pocket toolpath and I shouldn't need to use any additional toolpaths to machine this pocket. This is as basic as you can get. I want to cut a 3" square pocket that is .08 deep. I don't want sharp corners in the bottom of the pocket so I'll use ANY bullnose cutter. The radius size does not matter. Whatever is on the tool will be fine. I happen to have one that is 1" dia and it has .250 corner radius. I cut the pocket and measure it. The finished pocket measures smaller than 3" square. Why? Because when compensating for the diameter of the tool, MC respected the diameter of the tool, not the diameter of the actual cutting diameter. I don't know how else I can explain it. gstephens workaround will cut the pocket too big. The pocket floor will be the correct size, but the overall pocket dimensions (radiused "wall") will be bigger. Scribe the pocket and then cut it if you don't believe me. I believe this is a shortcoming in MC. Is this a glitch or am I expecting too much? Thad [ 08-27-2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: thad ]

quote: However the latest FKIA (Fu--ing Know It All) post tone of your two previous posts has Pi$$ed me off and so I say Good Day! Andrew, You're reading too much into it. We seem to not be understanding each other so I'm just trying to get my point across. Thad