Grob also does it using Siemens:

Another fanuc implementation, starts at 7:26:

I think you are talking about a boring mill. Those have been around since the early 1900's. This is different in that the X&Y axis interpolate while syncing with the spindle C axis.

You need to be more specific. I don't know if this ".0008" of taper over 7.25" is in reference to your rotary face in relation to parallelism to Y, fixture taper in Z at A0, or taper when at A90 or A270 in relationship to parallelism in X. What are you center of rotation values XYZ for your rotary, when you dialed in your tailstock, what were those values?

It sounds like you have a few problems here: 1. It doesn't sound like you know how to find center of rotation of your rotary axis. This imperative before you can be successful with any of the other steps. 2. To align the tail stock to your rotary axis I would first recommend that you find the center of the tailstock in Z to verify it is accurate enough for your needs, if not you will need to make the appropriate spacer plate to fix that problem first and foremost. Then I would start working on getting the Y on center, and then start dialing in your X for parallelism. 3. Your issue regarding A270 being out .005" - it's hard to gather exactly what is going on because you haven't mentioned which surfaces you are dialing in on, and where they were made. If you can describe it better or include some pictures it would be easier to determine if it is a programming issue, center of rotation issue, or machine square issue. At the moment it sounds like a center of rotation issue (your fixture is not on center or the center of rotation value you are using is not accurate). 4. You don't mention how tight the tolerances are on your parts, but if you are +/-.0005 or less then you should set up offsets for each plane. This will allow you flexibility in adjusting you planes to get accurate parts, regardless of potential machine square, or fixture accuracy issues.

Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. In regards to this method though, it doesn't matter. If the operator has the ability to utilize the features, they can, and if they don't, the program just runs like "magic" like a single offset program.

I don't think it is redonkulous. As a programmer, it is literally no extra work for me, the post does the work. As a shop owner it saves time and money. It is a more flexible system that allows the operator, and even the programmer, a lot of liberties that are not available to one offset rotary work.

Yep. C'mon dude, we were just talking about this last week! http://www.emastercam.com/board/topic/90001-older-mori-hori/

Exclusively.

Yes.

With MPmaster posts the first work offset is locked for the entire program unless you go into the misc values and turn it off. In my case I have it permanently disabled because the last thing I want is one work offset for multiple planes.

You will probably need at least a 3' reinforced foundation. 3 point is nice if you don't need the work envelope to be dead nuts square. If you do need the work envelope square 3 point is

These tools in aluminum pushed hard can break the envelope of 40 taper. If you are pushing the MRR in any hard material it will be easy to exceed the limits of the 40 taper interface with these size tools at those gage lengths. To me it sounds like the 50T is going yield better results. But it's tough choosing between a used and new machine sometimes.

DFO is hardly a great option for multiple parts on a hmc.

What you describe here is 50 taper work, unless you can deal with sub par surface finishes and replacing spindles. I'm not saying you can't take those cuts with a 40 taper, it's just not going to be a reliable long term solution.

I'm pretty sure I used a dos version of MC in the late 90's while I was in high school. So far none of the pictures in this thread ring a bell, but I am pretty sure I would recognize it if I saw it.

Losing signal, not receiving any signal at all, brake not working, battery dying substantially faster than kme claims, but the big one was the I think the servo driving the C malfunction while drilling a hole on the side of the part, meaning that while the drill was going in the C started oscillating, which of course roasted the drills.

I think that is the best application for the Schunk vero system. It's too big for most fixtures, but it would make a great pallet base. The system comes at a premium though, and I'd rather put that money into a new dedicated pallet, but I hate swapping fixtures

Techniks is good when it's good, but like all the cheap Taiwan holders there are plenty of bad holders that make it though QC. I have a stash of Techniks, HPI, GS tooling (same mfg as HPI) that all have substantial runout, most because the grinding didn't clean up after heat treat. I've found that the Maritool of today is quite a bit better than the Maritool of 5 years ago. I think I'll start using more of their holders if the quality can stay where it's been lately.

How are you finding the reliability of the wireless system? A shop across the street from me has a couple and they've been quite unreliable. I think they almost have the bugs worked out but they've have some spectacular failures.

Yes, except I have it setup to be even easier if I want. If I have one part on B0, and I have identical parts on B90-270, that are in the same position as the B0 part(but they are of course on different planes), then when I transform rotate my B0 Coordinate system it will create new offsets for B90-B270. I don't actually have to go setup a wcs for B90-B270 if I don't want to. If the parts were in different positions for each B rotation, then I would have to create wcs's for each plane. Like wise if I have identical parts patterned about X and Y on B0, as long as they are evenly spaced the post will auto calculate a unique offset for each parts, no wcs creation required. Further, I can take my translated pattern on B0, and transform it to multiple B planes, and it creates all the correct offsets. This allows me to create 200+ offsets with only one wcs, provided that the parts are in a set pattern and not spaced at random.

No, for a couple of reasons: 1. You don't have to create or make any of them, the post generates them, so there is no additional work on your end, at any point in the process. 2. Being able to move the position of a offset for a unique part has many advantages, but it's just one of many reasons to use work offsets. Things like in process inspection, being able to probe and update tool length, or diameter offsets, or being able to hit tight tolerances or parts that have tight plane relationships etc Even just simple stuff like actually operating the machine, it's nice to see on your display page that your tool is -1.25" deep in the part, opposed to -25.6789".

Yes, the post outputs all the work offsets using G10 in the header of the program. The nice thing about this system is that you never need to go find anything on the machine, provided you have all fixturing etc modeled correctly, which isn't hard to do. It doesn't matter if I am doing a one off part in a vise, on a angle plate, or a production program with 30+ parts and more than a 100 offsets, I don't have to go do anything on the machine. A couple of other benefits are that the program always has the offsets in it, and it always overwrites anything in the control register, so there is no risk of picking up incorrect offsets, which is nice when you are running more than one pallet. Another nice thing is that when you are probing for offset updates or inspection, everything is based on an local/unique part offset, instead of a global coordinate, which makes all of the probing math soooo much more simple. My post uses the plane manager to calculate my offsets. The center of my pallets are on the center of the MC coordinate system, Then I set my WCS how I like or need them on my parts. The post calculates the difference of the WCS location and the MC center location, against my COR values which I have stored in my post, then when I post, a box pops up and asks if I want G10 out put or not.

I have all my offsets calculated in my post. I much prefer this over using a macro to do the same thing.

If you post a picture of your lead in/out page any of us could tell you why you aren't getting what you hoped. I used a few other systems before mastercam, I would agree it is not intuitive, but there is quite a bit of functionality you can get from most of the milling tool paths. The trick is that most of it uses incorrect terminology or is just un obvious. Posting pictures will help.