Well I had no idea. I can't help thinking that this technology sort of takes the mystery out of it... There are heaps of these sorts of 'geometric toys' which are only interesting becuase they are meant to test the imagination to make them, or for people to work out how they are made. I'm not really a romantic in this sense, and without doubt this is a cool thing to do, but I do think it somewhat detracts from the appeal if you can just hit CTRL+P... Or then again I might just be having a cry for being outdone!!

I take it all back, thats not cheating... its just cool, the hours and hours I spent deburing with a toy sized file are hours I will never get back!! but out of curiosity wont you have to make it with little "tabs" holding it together? you can print/layer the cubes but not the air between...

Ha Ha your all cheating if you download it. I turned one manually for training, but I had to work it all out on paper myself first as an exercise. I didn't keep any of my notes tho so I cant help, but I can say before you bother to make it make sure that corner to corner each inner cube is larger that the hole adjacent to it. I've seen them made with bad numbers so that when you do the last side the whole thing falls appart. Have fun deburing the edges too, that takes way longer than the actual machining!!

I've experienced similar issues but it may not be thesame with depth cut parameters causing interference in finish passes on several toolpaths. I found that sometimes when I create a new path the default parameters for depth cuts are on with a whatever for roughing and whatever for finishing, but I turn it off because i just want one pass, or all at one depth, but.... even though the depth cut checkbox is "off" sometimes for no reason (not all the time) the value of the finish depth is still used to calculate the depth of the whole pass... so it does on pass to full depth minus the value in for finishing in depth cuts despite it being off and greyed out. so I go back in, turn depth cuts on, alter all of the feilds to zero, turn it back off and recalculate which fixes it. this happens at random like you have said.

Funny enough MU1 is on my to do list.... we let our maintenance lapse when MU1 was released, so it wasn't ever installed. We have just gotten back on the band wagon, but I made the choice to wait for X6 because we were right on the cusp when we signed back up and I couldn't see the point in going from X5 -> X5MU1 -> X6 all wihin a month or so, but now from everything I have read about X6 I'm swinging back toward MU1 again.... Please take a look when you can let me know if you find anything, or if MU1 will sort it out. Thanks again in advance.

In this case I have a plunge feed of 5000mm/min because the entry is outside the work running using core milling passes - but the "pecks" are in rapid G0 in the output post too, so its not using that rate. I'm also using no vertical arc entry or exit. operation 12 is the one. 0020497_A3123B_2 - BLENDED.zip EDIT: Thanks in advance for the help!

This may have been covered already but, Using MCX5 with an opti-rough toolpath I've programmed the clearance plane to incremental 2.5 (mm) with a full vertical retract.... On the first move of the operation after the tool change the tool moves down in rapid to 2.5 above the first cut depth - below the top of stock, then in rapid back up to above the stock, then feeds back down the first cut depth and proceeds to get on with it. So it basically does a little "peck" in rapid moves to whatever incremental clearance I program above the first z cut depth, then feeds in as I expect it to.... can anyone explain this to me? I can get rid of the "peck" by changing the clearance plane to absolute anything.... I can see the "peck" happening in slow motion in Verify but not in Backplot. In backplot the first move is the feed move not the 2 rapid peck moves.

I do a fair bit of engraving in steel (just steel not stainless) so this may not help you, but i have found that ramping as you first suggested is my method of choice. Depending on the size of the lettering I typically use 0.075mm (0.003") as the ramping depth with a feed/tooth of 0.01mm so the tool is really just scratching it out. I don't remember ever having to go deeper than 1.1mm 0.044" (i think) so i'm a bit shallower than you, but the job got done, just in a very long time. When engraving i have also been using a 60deg tapered ball nose tool with an R0.15mm (0.006") end, so my rates are for that tool. I have done a job or two where I used a 1mm (0.040") flat endmill, and I used thesame basic rates and strategy. with this small stuff I just go with slow but steady wins the race. Your case is pretty severe. If you get some success let me know how i'd love to be able to compare methods. I hope I got those conversions right..... Worst comes to worst if you struggle and the customer really wants it, perhaps look at producing a positive electrode and get someone to burn it in with SEDM? this would be expensive but if you have to make lots of parts it could work out....

absolutely of course i have. Buts its not a given that this will always be the case. Regardless of the DOC alone effective machining needs to balance feeds, speeds, rigidity, etc also, and when applied correctly a recut method is very effective.

ok here goes: Re dia offsets I never use multiple D offsets for the same tool, so I would never call tool 5 using d offset 9 for instance, only T5 D5. Re spring passes and control compensatation for sizing and tollerances - read above.... Wheres the contradiction???? Spring passes.... tell me, if you take one pass/cut along an edge, then retake the same cut, does the second pass remove material? the answer is most often yes. A spring pass does actually cut, just very lightly, and might i say, without very much deflection. Thats why its called a "spring" pass, to account for spring... Nobody would do it in a large run of parts because it takes extra time.... but thats not our concern in this discussion is it? we are talking about ways to reliably produce one off or two off parts without having to create lots of geo. to account for differenct requirements on alternative surfaces of a part model to match tollerances. My suggestions arn't for everyone, and quite clearly not you. Historically machinists advocate that using a recut strategy to size parts damages tools is correct if you are using HSS or even high cobalt ones. Using those tools and taking lots of very lights did blunten them considerably and quickly, however now that carbide endmills are readily available and capable, and coatings are so effective this isn't really the case any longer. Any cut or contact between the job and the tool causes wear, but its proportional to load. High load = high wear, low load = lower wear, seems simple enought to me. I think if you give the strategy a go you will find it is reliable.

Quick question, I have strictly used control comp in the past because myself and others also program at the machines and the in machine length setters need the r value to move the tools sideways to measure the length with the tip not the body, how do handle these problems if you use wear comp?

Didn't take long to get some controversy, I am a fan of the spring pass for steel, but I wouldn't do it in a production run. What I'm suggesting is that when you are doing one offs or very small runs most of the time it is rare that tools tend to get "used" to the limit because it will exposed to various materials and grades or conditions virtually every other minute. When you need to be able to program a new part or process in minutes and get onto the next job ASAP programming spring passes and using cutter comp in control can fairly guarantee you will hit your size, and any difference will be in the wear on the tool and that is easily corrected. Plus after a spring pass if you need to make another cut of a small amount you won't need to worry that your cutter will over cut and ruin the job. IMO these benefits outweigh the cost of replacing tools probably only a handful of parts sooner, in a jobbing shop. Efficiency is measurable in "jobs per day" just as easily as "parts per tool" Rant rant rant! He he

i'm in the same possition as you are, in that i make 1 or two parts, then the run is over. try using really small finish cuts (on the walls and floors) like 0.15 - 0.2mm and always use a spring pass. that way when the cutter runs the spring pass it is basically just skimming back over the wall you have already cut. you will avoid having to guess the amount of spring in the cutter, especially if the wall is tall. this used to be the thing that people swore was wrong, because it would rub the cutting egdes and blunten the tool, but with carbide endmills i think this is a myth. when you are making only very small runs of parts you very rarely get to use tools to their full extent because the parts and cuts change all the time, and i tend to throw out cutters because they have cut 40 or so 10mm high walls, then the next part needs a 20mm wall (or whatever) but the cutter has worn to show a shadow of the 10mm cut that preceeded. in my experience when you are only making a small number of parts you need to be able to program and setup quickly otherwise you won't ever make any money, so if your program runs for 5 mins longer, but you save an hour programming who cares about some air cuts or some spring passes if the parts come out to size with less stuffing around...

It seems to me that you are looking to exclude your expertise from the production of the parts.... not to be rude, but the guys and gals programming and running the machine tools are the people who imprint their intelect into the parts by actually making them. Its often easier to dream up a design than it is to make it. there are some good ways to deal with these problems, but you always need to do it yourself. Most parts I produce/program need to have selected surfaces or areas produced differently to the print or the model to allow for grinding, hard machining or to get to a tolerance. As suggested above i never alter my Dia. offsets or values, as i aways want my tool in mcam to represent the actual tool in the machine. You need to create geometry to get around this especially if you are going to chain geo for one finish pass where different surfaces/edges within the chain require different stock left or removed for whatever reason.... sad truth. My suggestions are to either individually chain a surface or egde in order set up stock to leave parameters for your result if you don't want to create geo (but this will make you toolpaths inefficient if you are making more than a handful of parts) or otherwise don't be scared to use the control compensation options to hit sizes. If you aim to cut to the centre of the tol (as suggested) and use control compensation you basically cant go wrong if you accuratly set your tool R para in the control...

I'm trying to work in x5 with an .stl file created in ArtCAM. I can import the .stl and I can use it as a drive surface for machining but i wanted to use it as a cutting tool to boolean subtract a solid to make a negative. I can't select the stl object/entity for the subtract and i cant make any curves on edges or anything like that. This is the first time i have worked with an stl (as model geometry) in mastercam and i'm wondering if there are tricks or ways to manipulate them to do i what i want? Any ideas?

I use the trocoidal milling a bit recently using tip cutters in steel sheets and blocks. I have found that using tip cutters I can afford to let the cutter over engage the material alot more than I would if I am using end mills. I think that this is because the tips on most insert cutters only have a 9-10mm average flute length and therefore I only tend to be cutting 8mm or so deep (unlike when I use a carbide end mill when I try to use the entire flute as much as possible down to 40mm deep). Anyway, for this reason I set the "adjustment stepover percentage" (I can't remember what its acually called on the screen - :-) ) to around 60-80% to limit loops in straight directions and let the tool get right into corners before looping starts. Just my opinion. On this topic it would be great to have micro lift and increased back feedrate in loops on all of the trocoidal cuts - maybe X6? Does anybody else think that all of the dynamic and trocoidal cuts make the machine sound like the lovechild of a chainsaw and an angry alarm clock?!?

I know that my problem sounds daft but its true. I had more of a play with it yesterday after posting, and I found that sometims I can make it work if I post out the operation on its own then it will 'reset itself' and let me make changes to the canned text, but only for a while before it 'locks up' again and I have to go through the motions once more. Now that I think about it surely I can't be only person with this problem. I even tried on two PCs using different X5 licences and got it to repeat the problem, and using different mxc-5 files. The thing about this is that canned text is more or less a set and forget kind of thing. Ideally I only need to put in an M01 once and then I just leave it there, but recently I keep having to play with it and I get this weird thing happening.

Hi, I keep getting a crazy problem when using canned text in X5 If I want to put in an option stop (M01) I go to the canned text screen in any operation, choose Op Stop M01 and click the before or after button, and sometimes the stop is inserted - but sometimes not; also... If i want to remove one, I go back to the screen, select the one I want to cut out of the program, and click the remove button, and sometimes the stop is removed - but sometimes not... If in any circumstance it doesn't insert or remove on the first attempt, I can click any button on the screen as much as I wan't in whatever order and absolutely nothing happens. Even if I go out of the operation, and then back into the parameters and try again, nothing happens... Once I get stuck like this I have to deliberatly make the operation dirty, such as by selecting another tool, then after I regenerate the operation it will usually allow me to make changes to the canned text options - but sometimes not.... This is driving me nuckin futs! Does anybody else experience problems like this?

Question: Why do you need to simulate the entire machine anyway? I've never used or needed it... is this a 4/5 axis thing to prevent crashes?

slight change of topic, What types of toolholders are you all using? I've been using ER40 collet chucks for almost of my machining including the dynamic paths...

I used to program and operate a old zayer bedmill with a 3 metre (9foot) by 1.2 metre (4foot) table. It was an old machine that had been refurbed with a xxxxor controller on it.... anyway I used to constantly adjust the axis backlash compensation between parts to maintain the accuracy when switching directions. In the mornings the comp could be up to 0.5mm (0.020") and then I would decrease that as the machine warmed up and lubrication got into the slides.... It was truely the most frustrating thing at the time but in hindsight its kind of funny in a way... in fairness to the machine, our workshop would range from -5 degrees C mornings to +25 deg. C mid afternoon (I have no idea what that is in deg. F). And after all of that the machine was still good for +- 0.1 at the worst in a straight line.

You guys have certainly opened my eyes. Thanks

Hi, I'm hardly at master at post editing and i am looking for some help with the variable operators. Using * (astericks) with a variable is to output the variable but what are some of the others. I was using variables of my own creation to store varialble values temporarily whilst i switched them until i reallised that ! (exclaimation) does thesame thing, kind of. ie: !spaces$ spaces$=zero pbld, n$, "output without spaces", e$ spaces$=prv_spaces$ Does this work for non 'named' variables such as any variable I might create for my own needs? I have seen other operators such as ' (apostrophy) but I don't know what it does or if there are others.... can anybody tell me? Thanks

Can anybody suggest an online or learn at your own pace style course which will cover these topics for people who can't attend this kind of course?

I like to use the control cutter comp because it allows me to keep the machine cutting to size without having to repost my cycles with a new tool size.... my pc is nowhere near the machines.... plus other machinists use the same machines in our workshop so i try not to make changes that only suit myself. When using WEAR for the compensation i'm meant to enter the value of the wear on the tool in the machines tooltable correct? ie. if a 10mm endmill cuts 0.02 oversize i enter the radius as "0.01" as opposed to "5.01".... yeah? Also, i now have two problems with this..... i have 2 pcs which i alternate between to program.... on one pc it will display as i mentioned above, defaulting to the uncompensated toolpath display, and now i have found it be the reverse on the second pc.... i have spent a while searching for a reason for this but i have no idea what the difference is.... there must be a setting but i can't find it.... looks like i am living with this for now.... both will verify and backplot correctly, and the posted output is thesame, its just that when the toolpath is first generated it will always show blue lines for the programmed co-ords that output in the nc code, AND purple lines showing the toolpath the tool will actually take.... I guess this is really just a visual preference of mine to be able to see both, but i am getting used to it now.