I like Ron's suggestions a lot... he's the master... I always learn something from his posts. I agree it is almost always best to not get lazy... to create the extra surfaces needed to smooth out toolpath motion. But... if you're looking for a lazy way to throw just one toolpath at something complex, and still get a good result... IMHO, "pencil" is an overlooked toolpath. I like the way it sneaks up on pockets and internal corners. Just "uncheck" the "Maximum number of offsets" in "cut parameters." Check it out. Reko-Pencil-Finish

@Colin Gilchrist Colin... thank you. Once again, you nailed it. I have experienced True-5-Axis singularities... but I never thought about them occurring in 3+2 situations. Excellent explanation!

Just send me $1 million in US dollars... I can get you the license through a guy I know named Gunther. You're welcome

Mastercam 2020 ************************************ This is a co-worker's problem. I triple checked... his planes are correct. ************************************** Main Plane = A0 B0 Secondary Plane = A90. B-40. ************************************* When I program a 5-axis job using planes, I always force a tool change for operations with the same tool. That allows for a safe rotation for my table-table Haas to locate. My coworker doesn't always do this... he sets a safe retract number in the post... say, Z8.000" and he says that always works... until now using MC2020. ************************************* When I post the Main toolpath alone... it posts A0 B0... which it should. But... when I post the operation directly above it... the Secondary... which has a plane rotation of A90. B-40. then the Main toolpath posts out at B-40. A0. Again... posting alone... it is A0 B0 …………. but with the tool path above it selected... A0. B-40. Crazy. ************************************* The only think I can think is there could be something in the post telling it to remain located at B-40. because it is the shortest path. I looked at the difference in the posted numbers in X and Y... and A0 B-40. XY numbers are different from posting the toolpath by itself ( A0,B0 ) so I believe Mastercam THINKS it is making a good program, but because my part origin is not located on center of the platter, the program is incorrect and can not be used. ************************************ Our work around is to force a tool change... that makes the main plane post out at A0 B0. so we are moving forward. ************************************ Bottom line question... is there a switch... either in the machine def, control def, or the post.... that will force the output of the main plane to ALWAYS post at A0 B0? Thanks.

Just in time.

Awesome... thanks for that rundown Pete. I appreciate your time.

If you don't mind me asking, what text book do you use for Solidworks with the MC add-on?

Thank you. That was very helpful.

I am curious how much demand there would be for this type of training. Perhaps I need to poll a few shops in the area to gage demand.

So, is that the c-hook you are referring to? It sounds like you are saying, might just as well go straight to Mastercam?

Would it be accurate to say that Solidworks with a Mastercam add-on is a stripped down version of Mastercam? Less toolpaths, less options, workable, but not as powerful? That is what I have heard.

I teach Mastercam ( stand alone version ) at my local community college. I am not familiar with the Solidworks/Mastercam add-on. For those of you who are familiar with it... would there be any value to getting this and incorporating it into our curriculum? Thanks.

This is a red flag to me. I've seen good shops have major problems ( bankruptcy/ out of business ) when they stray from what made them successful in the first place. Big work is a different animal altogether, from the slam-it-in-a-vise-and-go type of work. I'm not saying you can't do it... I know you are an intelligent, driven guy, I'm just saying, be careful. There is likely a reason you are getting "pushed into it"... and it's probably because the shops currently doing the big work for these customers are telling them no... and doing the jobs properly with reasonable timing... I've been there... big work is a high pressure game. If you give this bigger work a go... good luck... but surround yourself with excellent machinists, because mistakes on the big stuff can wreck you. JM2C

A shop we have done a lot of work for in the past, is pushing 100% CAD driven, electronic data and a paperless workflow. They use Siemens software... we have JT2Go, a free viewer, to look at their parts for estimating and supposedly, shop floor viewing... it is set up as a CAD style viewer so the operator can rotate the part around and click on details to see dimensions. The operators hate this format... they can't look over and spot a dimension on a paper drawing... they literally have to stop what they're doing, walk over to a computer, and start clicking around to get the information they need to proceed. All the typical problems are there... crashes and glitches... clicking on the wrong thing and clicking back or exit... dirty, grimy computer devices from being on the shop floor... it just hasn't gone well... it's been a painful process. The company refuses to provide standard drawings with views and cross-sections, on PDF's or some other simple way to convey part information. It was a tough decision, but we stopped quoting their jobs for about 3 months... I think other places have as well. Well, now they are asking us to start quoting again and offering to send PDF's too... I think they finally understand… while it is easier for them... it is far too difficult for the rest of the manufacturing processes down the line. I think it is still a bit too early to make a push for all electronic data in manufacturing. Computers in general, and especially CAD systems, are still mystical devices to a lot of people. It's hard to beat a good old blueprint spread across a bench next to your machine. I see set up sheets in the same way. A good one or two page set up sheet, with a few arrows sketched in showing where zero is, and a few hand written notes... well, call me old school, but I'm sticking with that. Sometimes simple is better.

So, in Mcam-2020, I'll click on the "Save Parameters to Default File" button and it crashes and kicks me right out of Mastercam. Just did it on Opti-Rough a while ago... went in again and reproduced it... again in Opti-Rough. Went into Area Rough... updated twice... worked fine... third time... crash. Anyone else see this problem?

Penny smart, pound foolish is an old saying... tell your boss Reko said to pony up some cash for a decent PC.

I have heard a lot of people complain about stock models, but as long as you use the right strategies... while not flawless... stock models are pretty awesome. STL's are old school... I haven't used them in years. I have had 20 or more stock models in one file across multiple multi-axis operations without issue. Using stock models are the only way for me. Here are a few things I do for success: - Never pick center drills to add to your stock models. The problem may have been corrected by now, but when I started using stock models they always caused problems and, in my experience, they aren't needed for representation anyway. - Don't use weird custom geometry. Feed mills come to mind. There is already too much information getting crunched... why complicate it? Take a few minutes to sketch up what size Bull EM will fit over your feed mill... then use that. The difference in geometry is inconsequential... it is only a rougher... and the time you save in computing and headaches will be enormous. - Save frequently. That way if you have a problem with something going dirty... instead of spending hours regenerating... you can just re-open your file... redo 2 or 3 toolpaths... and keep going. And use Mastercam's Back-Up function... it can save you hours of work. - If you need to make a change to a toolpath early on in a program... duplicate your file... then make the change in the new file. Again...there is no such thing as having too many backup files. *** Very important on this subject... I'm not suggesting having multiple files!!! I am saying, as you go along and run into a problem... it is a huge time saver to have a good file to go back to.... you at least have the option to go back to a file that had zero problems... then, redo 2 or 3 or 5 toolpaths, rather than regenerating for hours at a time... then getting a dirty toolpath again... then regenerating again. Regenerating is the enemy, unless you are convinced it will be a quicker solution.... but even then... make a back up file first. - Last resort... if your toolpaths keep going dirty... lock them... that is what the function is there for. Finally, if you are doing big work... don't be afraid to work across multiple files. Of course, I would agree, it is better to have all of your operations in one file... it is much more orderly... but I have worked on enormous files of 80,000 lb. parts... files so big and slow it was absurd... wasting hours regenerating previously proven out operations when it isn't necessary is silly. Save, save, save. We all wish software worked flawless with no workarounds... but that's just fantasy with high-level engineering software... especially when they are releasing cutting edge technology from year to year... there are simply going to be bugs and flaws. Get your house in order... use good practices... it will save hours, days and weeks of yours and your employers time. JM2C.

I'm with pullo… I ran a Heidenhain for years and it is prolly my favorite controller... very powerful controller.

The gentleman that posted those links passed away. I suspect his blog has as well.

Thanks Pete. We just bought the Catia translator from our reseller, Axsys Inc, here in Michigan because a new customer wasn't interested in translating the files for us, but they are giving us enough work to justify it. The question, so far, about Pro-E/Creo was just a questionnaire I needed to fill in an answer to for a potential new customer. If we get a lot of work from them, we will definitely purchase it, but no need right now.

Thanks guys.

I am filling out a questionnaire for a new customer and they are asking if I can open Pro-E files. I have Mastercam and SolidWorks but I am not certain. Can someone post a Pro-E file... or perhaps know the answer to this? Thanks!

They both work fine, but on occasion I have struggled with faceting on the old-school SWARF... so Pattern/SWARF Milling is the better one, IMO.

If you open the "Linking" tab plus sign... the old SWARF has the entry/exit option under there... but yes... definitely more controls and options with the Module Works SWARF.

Hmmm... yes... the SWARF milling under the pattern tab is the Module Works one... but by the terminology you are using... wall following, cut tolerance, and filter... you might have clicked on the SWARF under the Applications tab by mistake. The newer SWARF doesn't really use the wording you described in your first post. The old SWARF toolpath still works... but I have had better luck with the default, or looser tolerances there. The newer Module Works SWARF has solved my problem of faceting and poor finishes... it seems a bit more complex, but anything with more options is necessarily more complicated because you have to learn a greater number of concepts.