It seems to me that you are just not understanding. Feedrates and speeds have nothing to do with this. For some reason it randomly changes the Z DEPTHS in my toolpaths. Mostly 2D contour and 2D HSM, but I have seen it screw around with some of my surfacing paths as well (although not very often). There is no reason for this as far as I can tell. I didn't change anything, the path didn't go dirty, I didn't recalculate, it just changes itself. And I am running X5 MU1

Anyone else having this problem ? I create a toolpath with certain Z depth paramters, calculate it, and it looks fine. I then go ahead and create a few more toolpaths, and then when I go and verify the whole thing, a few of the cutter paths simply changed the Z depths to either higher or lower than it was originally. I go back into the parameters and they are all what I had originally input, recalculate the paths, and then it is back to what is was supposed to be. This has happened on more than one occassion to me. Very weird... and dangerous as well.

I almost fell over laughing when I read this. I guess CGTech isn't in much of a hurry to do anything where Mastercam is concerned. Not that I blame them much either. You would think that if they were serious about supporting MC users they would have a usable version for X6 out at virtually the same time, but then again, that would require communication between CNC and CGTech, and it doesn't look like that's happening. Too funny.

Early days of technology ? Your kidding me right. Other guys have been using stock model machining for years. And doing it well too I might add.

Actually, the investment in posts for other CAM pakages isn't as bad as you might think. Based on my experience with MC so far at my company, whenever we need a new post, we have to pay Xk per post to in-house, plus it is linked to your sim. That was unheard of back in my PM days. You paid a fee for a post yes (nothing near Xk mind you) BUT, it wasn't locked to a particular sim. I could transfer that post to anyone, anywhere and it would work perfectly. So realistically, you could probably find your posts online for FREE and not have to worry about anything. Just something to think about. Oh, and you could create your own posts too, provided you know what your doing that is

This statement is 100% bang on. If your CAM system works , and works well, then it doesn't need people defending it.

What got yanked fast ?

Seriously ?? Can't think of anything else? Punctuation perhaps? Improper use of a verb maybe ? Oh, and I totally agree with everything else you said too btw

I have an answer to that. It's called Advertising. As in M/C spends a fortune on it, while the other guys don't. Plus, just about any smuck can download a cracked copy of M/C, screw around for awhile, and then call themselves programmers to potential employers, therfore the Mastercam pool is pretty deep, so to speak. It's mostly filled with drowning programmers, but they are still there. It's easier to find a guy that uses mastercam then it is to find anyone with expereince with any other package. So whats an employer supposed to do? Nothing, thats what. They suck it up, pay the money for M/C and hope for the best. For any company that already uses M/C, it's just too darn expensive and time consuming to switch to something else, because they have probably been using it for years and all their old projects are in M/C, so to re-program them in a new CAM sysytem is, again, expensive and time consuming. Basically, if you've been using it long enough, then they got you by the short and curlies.

Really ? Got 20k you can give me so I can go out and buy a decent package? As for switching jobs, I think I answered that one already.

Yeah, it does actually. I've been doing this for a long time, with a few other CAD/CAM packages, and never scrapped a part due to toolpath issues. Offset and set-up errors yes, but not toolpths that I created. And yet, no matter how many times I backplot, verify or overlay a cut stock stl file, I still end up with crap more often than not, due to either bad code, or just a generally crumby toolpath. Now I'm a pretty smart guy on most days, but Mastercam is driving me friggin insane with it's limitations, constant chaining requirements, outdated alogrithims, usless spline machining, and generally unfriendly surfacing toolpaths. For a simple part, Mastercam is just fine, but for something complicated,..... forget it. Believe me, if there were other jobs out there that didn't use Mastercam then I would be there. But thats not the way it goes in reality, and I still need a paycheck.

I find it rather amusing that you have to use an outside piece of software to verify anything that Mastercam does. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in MC now does it.

I'm not whining... much ... but I think it would be nice if Mastercam caught up with everyone else finally. It has quite a few good features, but it still needs major improvment.

Yeah that works, but you get quite a bit of overlapping wireframe too. And yes, I am aware of the delete duplicates as well, and yes it does clear out quite a bit of extras, but not all.

This would be fine when you have a solid to work with. But it's not going to help you much when you get a surface model.

That would be the Scottish blood coming out

Well I am kind of familiar with featurecam and very good with Delcam products in general. Featurecam is kind of like a Powermill Lite. Basically what you need to do is completely forget everything you learned about programming, because Mastercam is just so different than Featurecam that you will just drive yourself crazy trying to reconcile the 2 of them. Workplanes, stock, toolpath verification and gouge checking are completely different in Mastercam so your previous knowledge on those subjects is just about worthless. Your best bet is to just experiment with some of the different toolpaths to find what you like best. Here are a few observations of mine... os far.... : 1.Mastercam is mostly driven by wireframe, so get used to creating alot of lines and arcs, then chaining your wrist numb afterwards. Don't use splines unless absolutely necessary. Try to use straight lines and arcs as much as possible. 2.Do NOT rely on M/C to verify itself to a model. Won't happen. You have to visually verify everything. Even then, triple check everything. 3.Rest roughing will probably drive you crazy. Good luck

Yeah, every time the tool changes orientation in the 5 axis paths it calls a G143 and an H value. I didn't want to start mucking around with the post too much in case I did something horribly wrong. But I will give that line you posted a try and see if it works for me.

Yeah we have a VR11 here as well, and regularly post out programs with both 3 axis and multi axis toolpaths in them, so it has both a G43 and a G143 in it. Unfortunately, the post does not seem to recognize the correct placement of these offset call outs so it can get pretty random. ie. G43 multiaxis paths and G143 for 3 axis paths. I haven't been able to figure it out, and neither has the reseller on a number of occassions. The only way to fix it is to go into the actual code and manually change them. Total pain in the behind, and can get a little dicey too if you accidentally miss one. If you find a fix then let me know.

Ah, I see. Not much use to me really.

Well thats a nice little tool. Not being overly familiar with it I have to ask this question. If I run it on a toolpath and it finds that my tool is too short or whatever, will it split the toolpath for me, or do I have to create 2 toolpaths with progressivly(?) longer tools? If it doesn't then it doesn't really help much other than to tell me my tool is too short, which I would discover anyways after having to run the verify over the model.

I guess they didn't get all the bugs worked out. Colour me shocked..... SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

Honestly, if you have to convince people to keep something that they feel isn't working, then if your in the position to do so, maybe you should actually consider something else. Of course if you have to use it, then thats a different story altogether.