The paradigm I am talking about is equating STEP NC with "engineers writing CNC programs" while I suppose that could be one approach to leverageing STEP, I doubt it would be a popular one. That is until feature based machining with robust material and process libraries are developped etc. But at that point it is the advancement in the software application that is replacing some of what the programmer previously did not the Engineer. My point being that although one technology may be built on another I think these are two very separate issues. [ 02-22-2007, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: CAM-mando ]

Thanks Colin, I was thinking the AP224 and AP240 would be the more pertinent near term technology for small and medium manufacturers. as James and you pointed out AP238 might be the future but it is a ways off because of th ecapital investment. I am trying to better understand AP224 and 240 and the other one (AP218 maybe) that is for CMM inspection. 224 and 240 are standards that provide "front end" data that should be able to be read into any CAM system or perhaps even some sort of verify application to assist the quoting process for example. Colin were these standards discussed at the seminar you attended? James, I don't think turning Design Engineers into Programmers would ever make sense, but forget the current paradigm. I do think the Step Standards will encourage (or neccessetate) more open business models and collaboration. Think of it as a customer who uses Mastercam has an MCX file already toolpatherd and proven for the exact machining center or a similar machining center as your company has. They send you the mcx file and say we have all the fixtures give us a quote. The original source of the MCX tool path data is not the point whether it was a programmer, and engineer, a hybrid or a collaboration. The point is that it is a proven machining process that requires little intervention from th evendor. The AP 224/240 files would include feature and machining data which upon import into Mastercam or whatever software you use would act like most any other program... In theory (and theory is just like practice ... in theory) Also if a generic process definition were defined and imbeded in the step file, tool, material and process libraries should be able to handle 75% of what the average programmer deals with every day. Colin can probably speak more knowlegably to this, but companies like Boeing are seeking to reduce transactions by 90% and costs by 20% or more. Initiatives like STEP implementation will provide them more flexibility to achieve those goals. Ideally a single data file or package would contain every possible piece of information that a vendor would need to produce a part. The purchasing function would become even more clerical than it is now and would approach automation. The government maintains Technical data packages that they use to buy spare parts. These packages currently include Scanned drawings, Specifications and notes. Adding Step files with imbeded machining data will allow the government to more easily go to a wider variety of sub tier suppliers. I am just thinking out loud, but I would think being a Step "coder" might be a niche reserved for some trusted vendors and Primadona (and I mean that as the highest form f flatery ) CNC dudes like yourself . I am guessing that the data however will belong to the customer and that they will be free to shop it around at some point to shops who maybe don't staff teams of programmers. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, at some point with the global economy, actual production could up and move pretty easily... accross the street or around the world. You used to have to be a friggin computer nerd to hook up a printer to a computer ... then came MacIntosh and what seemed like an eternity later Windows Plug and Pray. There is still a place for computer nerds, but hooking up printers is usually not one of them. I think Programming as we see it today will in many respects evolve into something very different and many of the tools we see as vital will be viewed much as teletype machines are today. edit:/ speeling is atrocious ... I ain't fixin' it though

It seems like this comes up every year or so but I couldn't find the most recent thread with a search. I have been a believer in this technology but a customer is indicating that things may be further along than even I had imagined with the STEP CNC concept. I need to have an intelligent conversation about this and it's possible role in the business model here but I am still not as up to speed as I feel I need to be. Any info would be greatly apreciated. http://www.steptools.com/library/stepnc/2006_toulouse/ Can anyone from CNC shed some more light on this. I know we have had discussions before, but is there anything CNC Software can share about the state of the art and Mastercam. A couple of questions I had (I will take what I can get - I realize CNC might be unwilling to answer some of them.) Is CNC looking at incorporating AP224 or would Mastercam rely on 3rd party applications? Is Reverse Posting AP238 realistic or is AP224 always included in the AP238 Data? How close to ready for Prime Tim is this technology? How close to ready for Prime Time is MasterCam's STEP products if any? For the inevitable discussion which always ensues I am passing this part of an email request from a large customer. quote: Potential benefits in providing modern technical data to bidders would be decreasing procurement costs and lead-times by reducing or eliminating the need for suppliers to develop CAD, CAM, and CAPP data, as well as improved product quality by enforcing greater discipline in the specification content. If favorable, the results of this study will become part of a larger effort to develop a business case and strategy to acquire, store, and distribute modern technical data.

Like most have said, we use a long file name on the computer (part no, rev, op, op rev and sequence.) The part number is the first comment text so on our controls it shows up on the pgm list page like John Said. Like Chris we generally construct the O number from the last 3 digits of the P/N and a sequence number. 95% of the time this automatrically prevents a conflict as most of our p/n's are different enough and we try to keep the controls reasonably cleaned up with only the repeat stuff staying resident. This has the problem also of getting into prog numbers that are reserved for macro's 9XXX or 8XXXX depending on machine for example. Never name your program O1111 O2222 or O1234 ... almost guarenteed someone else had already that original idea

quote: Now we have a toolcrib guyIs that Steve or Bob ?

Terry I love the siggy. Iskander every time I stumble upon your lazy tricks threads I am as impressed as the first time. Excellent work (BTW, you can't be so lazy given all the time put into sharing your dirty tricks)

Yes 9.1 did much to facilitate undercutting surfaces.

You said you verified the cutter was not following the surface profile by verifying the Gcode as well ... is that different on the other machine too ?

Fascinating post Jack. When you say Gulag, you mean the Chineese shop was staffed by actual prisoners? Sounds like you have a very good perspective on the family/work challange too.

Kunfuzed My understanding is that X currently supports twin spindles but not as fully as needed for most of the more complex swiss turns. The other systems I have seen support fully both spindles, and all the tool axis movements or spindle movements in the case of gang tooling including simultaneous work. The stock movement through te bushing is represented in simulation/verification as are the tool arrangements (gang, turret etc.). Also the ability to synchronize simultaneous multi tool, main and subspindle work really requires additional facilities within the programming system. Although it is possible to work around this with misc. reals and custom posts to get the code you want, I thing you would have to run the code through a 3rd party Gcode verify to see anything close to true verification. Several years ago CNC were going to release a product called MATTS that was going to support Swiss, but aparently resources were re-dedicated to X development. This is just my understanding, someone else may want to chime in. My guess is that now X is up and running, the old MATTS vision may lie in the future ... but of course that is just a guess

If it does have carbon in it carbide won't hold up very well in production. I have only used the stick form of this stuff on reamers and drills, but you might want to check and see if misting it would be permissable for production. http://www.orelube.com/pages/Boelube_prod/...ube_Liquid.html

Are you synchronizing main spindle work with sub spindle ? How is the verify?

quote: i just got offered another job... this one i cant pass up... see you guys later gota go... Poof .... and as fast as he arrived, our super hero vanishes ....

Call your dealer Greg.

I took a gander at the old Fire Dragon thread and This cracked me up.

The return of "Squating Dragon Hidden Email"

** Bump ** I am currently looking at having swiss capability by Dec06/Jan07, is there any word on where this stands? We are still at V9.1 but the addition of Swiss Turn requirements means I have 3 choices. 1. Upgrade to MCX if Swiss capability is available. 2. Purchase something like Partmaker for Swiss only but stick with MC for everything else. 3. Purchase another package that will meet all of our needs including Swiss turn. My search turned this thread up as the most recent so I was just wondering what the word is on the Mastercam street

I'll ask the stupid question, is it the 25.4 scale factor?

If you *must* show threads pictorially Show them as a series of circular rings rather than a helix.

quote: With the release of X5, V9's will be a dead release, not supported and not updateable. At the current release rate that should be sometime in the next 4-5 years. Are you kidding about the 4-5 years????? I suppose I will need to start demoing software and talking to my MCAM VAR.

G, I agree. BTW, what happened to "No Mastercam No Gcode" ?

From the link above, Greenleaf claims that flood coolant does not decrease the temperature in the cutting zone but can as much as double tool life for WG 3000.

Peter, my understanding of cutting with ceramics (milling and turning) is that the DOC and surface speed combination are critical to generating the heat REQUIRED for the cut. As I understand it, creamics rely on plastic deformation of the material ahead of the cut. Without the enough heat, the inserts don't hold up. The only thing I can think is that the the speeds and feeds are so high in this application that even with copious amounts of coolant the work piece is getting hot enough in the cut and that without the coolant the workpiece is suffering thermal micro cracks or something. As for tool life, it often appears the life is too short, but when you compare it to the volume of material that could be removed with carbide you get a better perspective. Out of curiosity, how big is the part ? BTW we run them dry on our lathes. EDIT: Peter check page 27 of the PDF. The "Paradox" is explained. http://www.greenleafcorporation.com/images/PDF/WG-300.pdf [ 05-30-2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: CAM-mando ]

quote: I could be wrong, but with the terminology that you are using makes it sound like you're writing a paper or report on CAM...I'm flatered ... what would you like to know about me ? CAM

Good stuff chris. We wre in EDM Today last year and Job Shop Technology this year. For 2 months after the EDM Today article I was getting calls from EDM wire and supplies sales people. I never know that many different companies existed. We got real nice quality color pdf's of the articles amd had 500 printed up. They make nice brochure stuffs for sales.