Many thanks for the response. We drew it as line arc geometry so its only a few entities but it is being output as point to point moves and thats how we saw so much code. Even though the cycle is turned on in the settings thats how it is being output maybe we haven't switched something else on.

Using mill/turn for the first time we only have c axis no Y and have to make oval shape flange on a part like an exhaust flange. Seems to make a lot of code around the flange shape and do not see setting for cutter comp on the c axis. Should we use this or use a polar cycle to do that then have less code. And have tagged for a c cycle but does not seem to use cycle. Any tips?

We have the same problem in our shop about maintenance costs and all we have seen are the glimpses of X. The boss says what have seen for this cash so far we said a few glimpses. The high cost of maintenance is referred to around as being held to ransom. I posted recently about the crap verify because that is of concern and copped a lot of flak but the genuine ones in that thread agreed that yes “verify” does require a lot of work. One even said it was free so what do you expect for free well he must not be paying maintenance that guy maybe someone else is paying the ransom for him. We have been paying maintenance all this time and still no X and it certainly appeared that even after all this wait and all the money down the toilet as someone said the Verify for a start is the same in X so a 2 year wait and it is same but maybe a bit better well that’s real confidence building. If they have never made a Windows program before and the dos one we use has problems and shortcomings does anyone think for one minute the X is going to be fully useable from day one. Or is it going to have more bugs than a disposal dump. Because of this cost the need for more output the extended delay and lack of information about the delivery of X we have just purchased Onecnc to get immediate better verification and more output to run our parts. We have to run unattended to compete we just have to get more hours out of the machines. To our amazement we started making programs day one and are extremely pleased with this software. This means that unless they do have something in this X that can justify the costs they won’t get continued maintenance from us.

Well I suppose this is the response I expected where the usual ones get off topic to what the question even was. From the answers given only a few actually had anything to do with the actual question "Verify". I was infact only referring to the verify which if you look at the real substance of the actual replies to the real question most agreed is not good. I have looked over our paperwork and cant see anywhere where the software was free all I can see is we paid many dollars for it. The sales rep actually demonstrated more of verify than any other feature when we purchased and at shows the verify is prominent also as a feature. With all the dollars paid why should it be necessary to go and purchase further software from another supplier to make it work as it should be expected to work.

I've been sitting back watching the comments about X quietly waiting on comments about verify, so I do have to ask one question. Is the verify in X going to be the same crap as 9.1. I know some of you will flame but if you are serious you would need to agree it is bad. They even seem to admit that the supplier of this is giving them crap at present and seem to be content with blaming them. We had a preview of X and it sure looks like the same crap but we were only shown a sample and have not run it on our own files.

what has lolypops and 4 axis and 6 axis tricks got to do with the discussion I dont believe that was mentioned. We only use 3 axis like the majority of users do in this forum. You guys seem to be very antagonistic towards a simple civil discussion and true statements.

As far as I can see OneCNC did not change anything except the whole web when they brought out their XR range so I think someone is getting their own memory capabilities tangled up with the truth. The XR looks to be streets in front of MC now we are still dealing with only one undo if you're lucky sometimes for just one example. Nothing as happened for the last two years in MC other than catch up hype and now we even have to pay maintenance to even get that.

Did some cheching on the other forum and apparently the someone that you were referring to was pretty close to home...like the moderator in disguise himself. So much for integrity.

I moved MCAM9 directory to another drive because of a drive space problem and now it won't run is there something in the registry or such to be fixed or do I have to do a new install which I was hoping not to have to.

Thanks for your replies It appears that it is best not to use this wear function at all. On further investigation I have not been able to find this method in any of our machine tool handbooks. this being the case why is the function there or how did it come about. Does anyone know of a machine control that recomends using it this way. It would appear from what I have learnt here it is a recipe for disaster to use it.

Thanks for the replies. After seeing these replies it would seem that the help file and the settings are both actually wrong. It would appear that the names Wear and Reverse Wear chould be reversed otherwise others like ourselves will make the part wrong unless they know that they are actually working in reverse. I did the rectangle test as suggested and if you look at the code thats the way it reads anyhow.

Thank you for the reply Iskander But I should have been more clear in the help file it says ------------------------- This is what the help file says: Wear - calculates the compensation (1/2 the tool diameter) into the toolpath and also outputs a G41 code when the direction parameter is set to left, or G42 when direction is set to right. Wear allows for a wear offset, for example .001 (the difference between the original tool size and the reground tool size) to be applied at the control instead of a diameter offset. When the Wear option is selected, compensation in computer and control are both enabled in the same direction. ¨ Reverse wear - operates on the same principle as Wear, but instead generates a G42 when the compensation direction is set to Left, and a G41 when the compensation direction is set to Right. When the Reverse Wear option is selected, compensation in computer and control are both enabled, but in the opposite direction. -------------------------------- So I used it as it says in the help file and it seems to do the opposite to what it says. I agree that it is not a good way for offset but if you have a bad machine and you want the software to do the offset and just use the control offsets at zero and use a value to compensate for tool wear to save making a new program. I agree it is not good and it is dangerous so we would not use it on other machines just one bad one. So my query is the help file ok or is it reversed because it seems to be to me unless I am missing something.

Using mill 9.1 I made a contour around a 2D part using wear setting left. It appears to give me the opposite if I put a + value in the fanuc control to make the part smaller. I checked in the help file which is the same as I got so I know I did it correct. Looking at the help file explaining about wear and reverse wear the help file seems to be the opposite or reversed to what it should be. Anyone else experience this or think this is actually reversed or am I wrong. Thanks

I imported an STL file from a customer and want to 3D machine it. How can this be done?. I am using 8.1 and can't find a way of doing this as there are no surfaces. It will not render also is there a special setting to do this?