Sorry I'll miss everybody today. I did see a couple of our customers yesterday however. Wednesday is usually the busiest. I also got a chance to speak with Brett of In House and with the authors of the "Step By Step" 2D Mill book. There were a few new people too. "It's all good." If anyone here is planning on going tomorrow, stop by and say "hey" at the Mastercam booth, #5245. It's the short day, show ends at 3:00.

Thad, quote: Since this is a discussion forum, how about Master Debater? Careful. You might get some bozo suggesting to abreviate that and just call it "Master 'Bater". How about Assistant Moderator for 5000 and Moderator for 10000? JMHO

Keith, Thanks for the suggestion. I'll contact my customer and ask him to try that out. I'll let you know if it works.

Hey All, Anyone ever work with this software before? I have a customer who has recently been attempting to convert their old AS 3000 files to Mcam. I've tried remote support to operate this piece of software for them to see what could be done. There are several other file types that AS3000 is listing for Export and Import, including .DXF and .IGS. When export file type is chosen and the "source" file selected, AS3000 only seems to export the file as a .SRC (source). Why would they even list other file types if they aren't supported? Is it an add-on converter issue? The customer claims they can't even call the Camsoft people and ask a simple question like this without having to shell out some big $$. TIA

Happy B-day eMastercam and to this fantastic forum. Now where's the cake?

Riley, Look at the Tplane and Cplane switches over on the left hand Secondary menu. Both those values should match for you to select a toolpath boundary for surfacing. HTH If you would like a little better advice, let us know exactly what it is that you attempting to do.

Crazy^Millman, I hadn't thought to check that box on. I did open the .MC8 in X2 and used the generic 3-axis VMC machine. The code is normal from that machine and post. There're no G91's on the line right after the work offset. That just proves that it works in X2 using all the same parameters in the toolpath but not the same post. I've forwarded this on to Steve and we'll see what he thinks after looking it over. I'll try the swithc though, just trying all possibilities. V8 was a little messed up with the work offsets in a Transform operation if I remember correctly. It could just be that they need to do it in X2 and forget V8. Thanks for your ideas guys.

Elad, I agree with cascadeclimbr here: quote: create a line from one endpoint to another if so its 3 clicks of the mouse. First click is on the Create-Line-Endpoint icon from the Sketcher toolbar. Second click is on one Autocursor selected point on existing geometry or sketched point on the screen. Third click is on second endpoint of desired line, either using Autocursor again or sketching the second endpoint on the screen. Enter to accept line as is or left click on screen using another point for the next line. Once in the Line function, there's no Backup or pressing the ESC key to change the menu to create a Horizontal line or Vertical line or Polar line or Multi-line or Tangent line. These five separate functions in V9 are included in the same Create-Line-Endpoint function in X and X2. Far less time than clicking on the ESC key and typing another button on the keyboard. The point I'm making is that while it SEEMS slower at first to create geometry in X, use it for a while and you'll eventually decrease your time to design with it. It just takes a little time to get used to it. If progress wasn't better we'd all still be riding horse drawn carriages. You must move forward. Mastercam is not going to continue to develop V9. HTH

Bump!

haroldm, Asolute values in the parameters are always in reference to the Origin (X0 Y0 Z0). Incremental in the operation parameters is related to the location of the selected geometry for the operation. These should not be confused with a G91 output in the code. Many new programmers are leary of using the Incremental because they associate that term with the G91 output. This term should read something like "From Geometry" or "From Chain". For example, if you chain a contour on a 3-D wireframe that's at a -0.5" depth, Absolute value would have to be filled out to (-0.5) in the field. Selecting the same chain and using Incremental, set the value to (0.0) to get the toolpath to machine to the same depth of the chain. The output will still produce the proper depth (-0.5") but if the geometry is ever moved, the Incremental depth is associated to the chain and the depth value would not need to be changed before regenerating the operation. Also many contours could be done with the same tool in the same operation even if they are at differing depths. HTH P.S. This unfortunately has little or nothing to do with what you describe is happening at the machine.

Camdude, Are you using X or X2? If so you may be selecting the wrong regen icon. There are two icons for regenerating toolpaths in the Ops Mgr. The one on the left, it looks like a ball end mill with a little green triangle pointing to the right, will regenerate all selected operations, whether they need it or not. The other one, looks like the same tool only with a little red "x" to the right of the tool, will regenerate all ops that have a red "X" over the toolpath icon. The second icon, will give you this "error" message if you click on it and there are no operations that are in need of regeneration. Then you need to select the operations all over again. Is this what is happening? HTH

Crazy^Millman, Here's a sample from the program: T1M6 M01 T0 M11 G0G90G55B0. M10 G0G90G55X-4.Y2.S4033M3 G43H1Z.8M8 Z.3 G1Z0.F80. G41D1X0.F175.6 X19.0313 G40X21.4312 G0Z.8 (FACE TOP) G58X-4.Y2.Z.8 G91 Z-.5 G1Z-.3F80. G41D1X4.F175.6 X19.0313 G40X2.4 G0Z.8 (FACE TOP) G90G54.1P2X-4.Y2.Z.8 G91 Z-.5 G1Z-.3F80. G41D1X4.F175.6 X19.0313 G40X2.4 G0Z.8 (FACE TOP) G90G54.1P5X-4.Y2.Z.8 G91 Z-.5 G1Z-.3F80. G41D1X4.F175.6 X19.0313 G40X2.4 G0Z.8 G28Z0.M19 M01 As you can see Ron, the code does look Absolute in the first section but Incremental in the second and following sections. I activated the Misc Values however and made sure they were all set to produce Absolute code. I suspect this post may have been modified by someone else after Steve changed some minor things in it. Also there's no "*SG91". It's called from the SGABSINC string.

Hey all post gurus! I have a customer who has recently updated from V8 to X2. They are still using V8 until they get familiar w/X2. They sent me a post issue that is just bugging me. It seems like there should be something simple I am missing but can't put my finger on it. The porgram calls for them to translate the ops in the Y direction. They have the parameters set to produce new offsets using "Assign New" and tool origin only. The weird part is that the first offset used in the is OK (G55) program but the next offset (G58) has a G91 on the next line. They haven't selected subprograms and later in the same program the G55 also has a G91 on the next line of code. I activated all the Misc Values in the selected operations, which are being copied in the Translate toolpath and the posting shut off. I know what you're thinking. It's V8. We shouldn't be supporting it anymore. The customer recently updated though and needs to keep stuff going until they're ready to use X2 exclusively. Any help would be appreciated. TIA.

WWFCAM, Those are all great cards. I would follow gcode's advice here though. The one thing that I'm more concerned about is the main processor. We've tested AMD processors here in our office and use them side by side with other systems using the Intel P4 chip. The AMD's often are a less expensive, faster processor when it comes to 3-D and multi-axis performance in Mcam. However the dual core chips don't have any advantage and in most cases will actually decrease Mcam's performance in processing more complex toolpaths. Also, the Athlon is the only processor that we recommend if using AMD. No other AMD chip seems to perform well with Mcam. The system looks impressive, from a gaming or high-end CAD perspective, but Mcam is where you make your money. Not saying Mcam doesn't work well with the leading edge of technology. Just be aware that not all software is alike. In this case, choosing what matches the performance for your application wins out over getting the most expensive and newest hardware. I use a Quadro FX 540 w/128 Mb of onboard RAM and have almost no issues on my system. Granted I'm not often processing multi-axis toolpaths but the surfacing toolpaths that I do demonstrate quite often have taken less time with each release of Mastercam. The video card has little to do with the actual processing of toolpath. HTH

Threept82, Steve's been in CT the past couple of days. He's actually scheduled to make an appearance at your old place of employment on Wed. Guess they need some help after you left. I'll let you know if there's anything I can fix for you or if it requires more of Steve's expertise.

Threept82, Good to see you're still around. What .MMD, .Control and post are you using? You could always call us or send me a .Z2G file and I could look it over for you. It doesn't sound like it would be too tough to fix. Was the post updated using Mcam X Updatepst Utility? Let me know.

John, I'm in agreement with SPAN and Thad. YOu could separate the geometry before trying to Divide it. Either use Colors and Hide what you don't want to see, or use Levels and place all the little cavities on one and your red lines on another. Turn off the visibility of whatever Level you don't need and "Viola!" Divide will do exactly what you want. Or the method Thad described with this statement: "Depending on the situation, you can do a divide at the end entities, then just delete the remaining middle piece." will also work. It may even be a little quicker than separating the geometry. "There's more than one way to skin a cat". HTH

Larry1958, quote: The control method is here to stay and I am going to have to re-program myself back 15 years. That's a shame. As what plenty of others here in the USA have said, I prefer Wear comp to anything else. I recall that I didn't use it very often when I was programming and operating in the past with previous occupations. Once I learned Mastercam and found out what Wear was and what I could do with it, there was no looking back. Kind of like using V9 for so long and then learning and using Mcam X. Different companies do things differently. Everyone has their own preferences. I remember having a HUGE discussion with one or two students in classes over this issue. I even convinced one programmer, who had been using Control comp for years, to use only Wear from that point on. The operators weren't happy and they had the argument "all our old programs were written with Control. What happens when we have to run any of those again?" The point I made was that with proper notes, there would be no confusion as to what program was written to use either comp style. The programmer agreed with me and made porgrams with Wear. Months later that programmer left the company and they hired a young kid to replace him. They sent the young guy to class and I tried to convince him to continue using Wear. I found out a couple of weeks later that he went back and programmed everything using Control comp in MC. To this day I think that company is still using Control comp. The operators won that battle. Many others have come in for training from other companies and after hearing what Wear is have decided to switch to it after years of using Control. It all comes down to preference. Maybe after some tests and time, your operators will come around. Tell them it will mean less work and responsibility for them but they will still be paid the same. J/K about the pay. You can't guarantee that will happen unless you're the one paying them.

William Grizwald, I believe mcpgmr may be on to something with this statement: quote: Sometines decreasing the step over amount will fix it too. If there's a large stepover amount (>50%) and a large stock to leave value, the Open Pocket could simply be entering wherever it finds enough room for the tool. Changing those two values should help as well as using the "Start Point" method described without using the "Open Pocket Roughing" technique. QC may not consider it a "bug" because the toolpath is simply trying to do what you ask while considering all the values of the parameters. A good test would be to use a smaller diameter tool with the same parameters as the first toolpath. If the smaller tool does it the way you intend, the original tool is too big to do it the same way. HTH

Ah, so... You were trying to chain everything by color mask but everything was the same color. Now I see. Thanks for the clarification John.

Dave, Usually when finding the Length using the method you described, I tend to use the "S" selection, or distance between two points. Then select one point from the Origin and the other from the back face at X (or Dia.) 0.0. Using the X-coordinate from the geometry should work except danbo brings up an excellent point. The Data Entry Shortcuts are usually referring to Milling values and not Lathe values. To alleviate confusion, either use the "L" for Length of an entity, or "S" for diStance between two points. HTH

John, Is the Cplane or 3D switch set to 3D? This would cause the cahin to stop at all branch points if the wireframe has connecting entities that go in different directions. Try switching it to Cplane and chain it. That should give you a complete chain without stopping at branches. HTH

Crazy^Millman, It's a little easier if you use the default color scheme in Windows XP under Appearance. The buttons are a little confusing until you get used to it. Check out the pic below. HTH

Rakesh, You can also Analyze-Area/Volume and analyze the 2D Area of the rectangle or any closed 2D shape. Once selected there is an option to create a point at the center of gravity, which is the geometric center of the analyzed 2D geometry. See pic below. HTH

goldhntr, I agree with McamNut and this statement: quote: I do not import iges files anymore . IGES has been around too long. There are much better file formats to import. STEP files can be exported from Pro-E and come in much cleaner than IGES. An alternative would be to invest in the Pro-E converter to bring in the .PRT files directly into Mastercam. That would be your best solution if you regularly design with Pro-E but machine with Mcam. It's worth the investment. Then you won't have to concern yourself with sub-standard data like "I-GuESs" files. HTH