What does the load meter show when you are plunging? I'd suspect a spindle overload too. Router have very fast spindles, but low torque compared with VMC's.

If you've created the text as a font, then: Modify, Break, Draft/Line to explode them. You are still better off using Create, Next Menu, Letters, though.

Run the hasp9.exe and see what is authorized on the SIM. If only Lathe is authorized, you need new codes, and only your dealer can take care of that.

Marc, Check your sandiegocadcam.com email.

I find I usually get more done if I take a considered approach: be un-emotional and talk facts. In almost all cases, when I go "over the top" I later regret it. Never offer a compliant without proposing a solution. That said, we are idiots if we don't let the rebels in the group rant once in a while. Some of the most technically proficient people are not very articulate at all. The only way they can get the words out is to just scream them. But they are often spot-on. That is where the pain is, and where the pain is is where we should be looking to improve. So, Rebels, continue to rebel. Just choose your battles wisely. One of the things I've always appreciated about CNC Software is they let you vent without taking it personally. It's like they realize that if they let us bitch, we'll show them how to make better software. It is frustrating when you are so determined about something, but it appears nothing gets done. I think Ken Erman said it once (to paraphrase), "Just because you are very vocal about something doesn't mean you win the arguement". CNC is under the same constraints as any other technology company: time, money, people, resources, creativity. Usually when I hear the "real story" behind decisions, I understand them and often concur. These people do think about things carefully (from the top down) and are sincere about delivering the best damned CAM system in the world. Given that I've maybe once in 10+ years simply NOT been able to do what I wanted (out of thousands of parts) I'd say they are successful. Peace out.

If you have a lot of stability problems with Mastercam, it has to do with your computer. I get fewer "crashes" in Mastercam than I do in Microsoft Word-no exaggeration. The first thing to check is your video card (compatibility, update drivers). I did have one computer with XPRro that I had lots of problems with. It had a lot of "overhead" (many users, etc). I took it from 512MB to 1GB ($230) and it runs perfecto now. If you are running XPPro, I'd up the RAM to 1GB (it's CHEAP!). Is there an overall stability issue with Mastercam? No.

If you are using your own software, at least $75 per hour. If you are using the customer's software, $35-$50 per hour. Avoid a "fixed price" quote, and make it clear to the customer that you will bill for any changes; even small ones. Make sure you consult with the customer in advance so you know what tooling they have available, and agree to an overall process plan. I prefer to program on-site in most cases. This is a tough way to make a living, but a nice way to make a few extra $$$ on the side.

I had an M50 and loved it. It rocks. It's a heavy computer, so hopefully you don't need to travel except between desks. I think Dell used to offer the ATI or NVIDIA. You must get the NVIDIA graphics.

I'm a stong advocate of flat screen monitors over tube type monitors now. Open up a lot of desk space and they are SO much easier on the eyes. Nvidia Quadro 4 with DVI video output... nice.

Besides the technical issues, Mastercam still exists and has a expert dealer network. Surfcam is dead.

Jenks, Yes, there is a shortened carbine version of the M-14. I saw a short show on the XM-8 on The History Channel (Mail Call). The new M-8 appears to be perfect in every way. This is a quantum leap over the M16 (aka M-4). Gas is not vented into the receiver (duhh!!!!!!!). It's uses a gas and piston system.. similar to the M-14 so all the gunk stays out of the moving parts. They claim 6,000 rounds between cleaning if needed, and it's about 1 lb less than the M-16. The magazine is arched to follow the shape of the bullets, and transparent, so you can see how much lead you have left! I heard a stat once (that I don't believe, but it could be true) that up to 15,000 US troops have been killed by jamming M-16's. This is a hot &$!^ bad &%$(%&$^&%*&^ weapon. I'm sold. The Feds can raise my taxes to get it to our guys in the field early. Looks like our guys are finally going to get the weapon they should have had 30 years ago!

When you drill the very first point, you focus on it, and how the tool got there. I think this sets a pattern for dealing with all the other holes; when you look at the second hole, you consider how the tool got there, etc.

I think choice #2. As I ponder a drill hole, I am concerned with how I approach the hole, not how I depart it. That is, my mental focus is on hole #4. How do I get there? Do I need to clear any obstacles? On the last hole, I'm not concerned about how I leave the area at all, since I retract to home. Maybe this is just how my mind works, but I think the v9 way is confusing. If the vote is close at all given v9 worked the other way [and people have been conditioned to it think the other way] I think argues that most think as I described above; we must all have a strong intuitive drive to think as I've described.

I forgot to congradulate the guy who did the lower receiver. Really nice work! Love the M8!!!!!! I especially liked that they are not using a direct blowback system, which I could never understand (other than it was cheaper to make). Now if they'll just come out with a .308 version "Unlike the current M4/M16 direct gas system with gas tube, the XM8 gas system does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon’s receiver during firing. This greatly increases the reliability of the XM8 while at same time reducing operator cleaning time by as much as 70%."

I shot both M-16's and M-14's in the Marines (M-16 was the standard weapon. M-14 was used in match competition). While the M-14 was heavier (about 30% more), it never, ever, not even once, in 10,000+ rounds I personally fired, jammed on me. It also had enough power to reach out and touch someone far away (I've shot the 1,000 yard line at Quantico, VA and kept them all in the black). The M-16 A-1 would jam regularly. At 600 yds the bullets would sometimes stick in the targets that had been glued and papered many times. Also, the trigger on the M-16 just sucked. More like firing a squirt gun. I like a nice, smooth, crisp two stage trigger. Is the AR-10 more reliable? My dream rifle would be a M-14 converted to a bullpup design (someone in Israel did it) with a titanium receiver to save weight. Shorten the barrel to save weight and overall length, but still be able to hold a decent (3") group at 600 yds. Based on my experience, I'd rather had a high quality AK-47 than an M-16, but maybe the new M-16's have changed????? Has anyone heard a rumor that a replacement for the M-16 is in the works for the US military? [p.s. I like the new Baretta pistols, except for the 9m ammo, which seems weak. The old 1911 Automatic, designed by the brilliant John Browning, was reliable and would knock a mule on it's butt.]

Cad bleu? I'm not sure I'd want software with "blew" (sic) in the name.

IMHO: trash it and get a Mastercam post processor. 5-axis trim cuts, etc. are awesome in Mcam and much easier to use.

I believe you need to update your data translators which you can do at www.mastercam.com Go to the Support, Current Downloads area. Download the dec03translators.zip and any newer updates related to SW.

FZT and MR0304, along with constant updates of data translators and more. It's not like you have to wait for the number of Mastercam to change to get value from your software maintenance. As far as X, I'm willing to wait a little while to make sure it's tight.

Sorry to say, I don't think you can dust off that old code and make a viable product in today's market. The new world is multisurface, multiaxis, solids, feature recognition, knowledge-based machining, mill-turn. The cost of entry now is too high. Even if they have a workable product, they won't be able to keep pace with CNC Software.

Any other Point Control people out there that remember this different from I? I did always have the utmost respect for one of the founders, Jerry. His wife was the most wonderful person I ever met: very soulful, kind, funny, engaging. She spent years away from OR teaching English in China. You said one word with Mary and something just clicked. She made you glad to be alive in her presence. Jerry got out of the co. before things got too bad, and his lovely wife (to the best of my knowledge) died of breast cancer a few ago. Jerry was (is) a good man. [sorry these are old memories, and please correct me if I got any facts wrong.]

I'm talking about 1989-90, well before CAMAX "merged" (ie: bought out) Point Control Co. I think the progression here was: 1. Camax buys Smartcam 2. SDRC buys Camax 3. UG buys SDRC Once these things start shuffling between companies, you know the gig is up.

Threept82 has it right. At the time Smartcam (aka: Stupidcam) started going down hill, it and Mastercam were about equal in market share and capability. What caused Smartcam to implode was: 1. The basic structure made it difficult to implement surface machining. Smartcam was unable or unwilling to bite the bullet and make the internal structural changes to model and machine surfaces. 2. They put out a user interface that was garbage and that alienated many customers. 3. They screwed over their dealer network. That really killed them. When your dealers leave, you no longer have a business. 4. They quit listening to their critics, who were really just trying to show them the path. 5. They tried to implement certain technologies before it was ready (I remember them saying, "we don't have to machine surfaces, we'll skip that and go straight to solids). 6. They quit looking outward at what was going on in the market, the big, unavoidable trends (esp Surface machining) and were focused inward on their own turf battles and power struggles. 7. Critics (internal and external) became afraid to say what was on their mind out of frustration and fear of retribution, so they just shut up and jumped ship. Like I said, a very interesting story. It's amazing to see how fast a company can implode. The whole idea was to take the company public and all the top managers would have a fat payday. In pursuing that goal, they didn't care who they ticked off. Well, the IPO never happened, and Smartcam took a rocket sled into the dumpster. CNC Software surged ahead because their basic software structure was superior, they never ticked off their dealer network, and they made few business mistakes. In other words, CNC benefitted tremendously by being a stable, decent company to work with.

I checked out the web site. IMHO some old Smartcam employees who want to stay in Eugene, OR (hey, some people like it there) are dusting off the code and trying to make some $$ on it. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure there is a need for ongoing support for old Smartcam users, but I don't think this can compare at all with Mastercam. I know the Smartcam story pretty well. Some day some MBA student should do his thesis on the rise and fall of this company. It is an interesting business story with a lot of lessons for anyone in the CAD/CAM business.

I would not break the spline in Mastercam. It will make further work on the part more difficult, and it simply is not necessary. Just set the Filter tolerance a little tighter. Mastercam DOES filter properly (believe me, I've tested it extensively a while back, and it does exactly what you tell it to do). However, a .001 filter tolerance is clearly visible on the finished part! The part looks like a freaking disco ball. .001 is NOT enough. I suggest you turn your total tolerance to .0002 to .0005, and make sure you are filtering for arcs, not just lines. I hope this helps.