I have this macro that will calculate the work offset numbers from any angle to any angle with any given point(It is mike lynch's macro). And I am trying to prove the numbers using excel/calculator and they just do not jive and it is driving me nuts.

The problem boils down to how the controller is doing the math.

#108=-35.4335
#531=-47.9680

#111=#108-#531

On my calculator/excel #111=12.5345. On the control (Fanuc 30i A btw) it is 12.5325. I can draw this point in mastercam and the control is correct. I have a compound angle app that also gives me the number in the control yet my calculator/excel does not solve this the same way. WTF am I missing??

Yeah this is the latest version (LOL) of the forum. There was one before this one

17 hours ago, cncappsjames said:

No, not saying that at all. That came out wrong sort of. I'm just saying when an ex Okuma guy comes nosing around a FANUC machine, it's HIGHLY suspicious. Sometimes even with with Mazak guy it's suspicious too. Let's be honest, Mazak shop/Okuma shop looking at FANUC machines is like racial integration in the 50's only without the blood.

If you're serious about buying a machine and not just looking to just talk $#!+, hit up Colin (he works for Methods) and PM me and I'll put you in touch with the right Matsuura guy in your neighborhood. Only PM me if you're serious. Otherwise we can just continue the banter.

I enjoy it anyway because I nearly always learn something when somebody throws up the "you can't..." flag.  

Yeah, that'll happen... when a 1 armed, 30 year old China born woman becomes President.

 

I worked at a place that had 2 5 axis mazak machines that had fanuc controls on them. So much fun trying to get help I was going to buy a stone and try and squeeze blood out of it... I thought my chances would be better.

15 hours ago, YoDoug® said:

If size allows we almost always use insert drills. We use Iscar SumoCham drills for almost everything we can. 

A while back, when I worked for the Okuma dist, I had a customer that did a pretty extensive test on drills. He compared Mits, Guhring, Walter, and Iscar SumCham insert drills in 316 stainless. He made a big spreadsheet that accounted for original purchase, resharpening, replacement steel bodies, cycle time, etc. The Insert drills were 20%-40% less cost per hole.

Did he try the seco performax insert drills in his test as well? I routinely drill holes in the 1.5"-3" range with seco, sumitomo and kennametal stuff and these performax drills seems to last the longest and gives me a better quality hole. The problem is I don't really have a large test range to compare it to.

I have the same issue and when I make changes to the metric config it pretty much never saves some of the settings. Now I am just stuck with it cause i am tired of reloading that config.

I prefer walter and mitsubishi. There is a pretty large price difference in the walter tools just so you know. The DC150 line is cheaper than the DC160/170 lines and they all last a long time.

One way you could do it if it won't post out after the m30 is to add a manual comment at the top of your program like
GOTO4444

Then at the end of your program add your manual comments/probing routines in the toolpath manager, but preface it with a manual comment
N4444

Now your program will jump to the bottom to do your stuff then you can give it a GOTO1 to have it jump back to the top of your program to an N1 line to run the rest of your code. This way you avoid the whole posting after m30.

I am not a fan of having operators do the "search for this" stuff. It just always leads to bad places and the invention of new ways to blame you for what went wrong. All of my probing and macro math is at the top of each program with error checking codes put at the end of my programs and use goto's to get it done.

16 minutes ago, mayday said:

2 things, where did you get that layout?

I'm working in Romulus also

My own blood sweat and tears to make that active reports template. I'm working at Worldtek where are you?

Not all tools are filled in yet but the vast majority of them are. I came up with my own holder naming scheme based on what I have to work with at my current place (which is practically every holder manufacturer under the sun here, so its generic). Order numbers, stickouts yada yada.

Spending the extra time up front in programming is the whole reason I am doing strictly programming now. Take the time to do it and it will save you time later when you have to remake/repair something or losing more time to remake parts.

I will say I am a firm believer in you can never 100% dummy proof anything. You will just get a better dummy to beat you. The little things will just help make things easier.

Most of these guys have similar models for holders. I've been using the parlec and kennametal models for most of what I need even though it may not be the one they grab its usually pretty close.

I also use the machining cloud program to get them if they are in that system, its real hit and miss there.

19 minutes ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

I have a very similar story. I've been bitten by Autosave more than once, so for me it is "Backup", but I set the max copies to '20', and I always set the "Backup Folder Location" to "C:\MCBACKUP". (This gives you a single location to search through, and also a single location for "purging" your old files.) I typically will sort my backup folder by "date" about once every month, and will delete any backups older than 30 days.

I do keep mine sorted on a separate drive but I sort mine by mastercam version because I still do use 2019/2020 occasionally and that soup mix of backups drove me nuts.

Back in ye olden days (I cant remember which version) Something was broken with that auto save and it corrupted a very tricky part I was programming (it was like 200+ megs at the time... early 2000's) and I lost it all. I have never gone back and tried it and I never will, that trust bridge was burned to ash. I use the auto backup keeping a few copies every time I save and I save a lot and its saved me countless times.

This is a horizontal program. So I duplicated the front plane and created a new origin. This program was started in 2019 though so maybe thats it? I tried to repeat this in a fresh session of 2021 and it wouldn't do the same thing.

I usually keep the perp entry off and I don't use sweep.

I see in the whats new for 2021 that an option has been added to start/end at the center of the hole. This has changed how the code is output apparently because now If I input 90 in the start angle box, 0 in the sweep angle box it doesn't actually start @ 90 degrees. It starts at a nice random 36 degrees. Is there any way to fix this so if I type 90 it starts the tool in a 90 degree angle?

41 minutes ago, crazy^millman said:

Change you machine sim model in the Verify to a 5 Axis machine. Verify I believe is now tied to a machine in the Verify settings.

OMG thank you!

I want to verify my toolpaths and now in 2021 i get these popup boxes every freaking time and I can't find a setting to turn it off. Anyone know?

1 hour ago, Chally72 said:

Hm, I cannot reproduce that issue on your file no matter what I do....will forward this on.

Thank you for taking the time to look at this Dylan.

34 minutes ago, gcode said:

did you try making a point at the center of the ball and using that as the origin

Nope I thought this time I would do it like the video Dylan made just to show either points or circles still aren't working for me.

edit:: Please notice at no point in time do I use solid models for ANY associations. I never use them, I have always used wireframe for plane settings. This worked forever before 2020.

So no its still broke. Opened the solid model of the part and tooling ball fresh in 2021 without anything else in the file and created an entity normal plane from a hole axis line, associated it to the circle on the tooling ball, it did checkmark the box which is great. Then I went to top view translated the tooling ball and circle 2 inches and noticed the zero numbers never moved from the original position of the tooling ball. And to add to the misery the associative checkbox is still checked LOL. Attaching picture for funzies.

11 hours ago, gcode said:

gms1

was this file created in MC2021 from scratch, or created in an earlier version and imported into MC2021?

No I am not certain because I didn't start the file but it I believe it was started in 2019. Now you got me thinking to do this in a brand new file.

Ok, can we go back to 2017 planes now? That video doesn't explain wtf I am suppose to do.

If you want to repeat what i did here ya go:

model prep - hole axis on one of the 30deg holes in the side of part

in planes menu dropdown, create from entity normal, click hole axis line, set the correct orientation with the arrows (for me it was plane #5 of #8)

in the planes window click the arrow and select the point in the middle of the tooling ball to set zero

Now cuss yourself out and realize you need to move your zero, put the view back to top/top/top

translate tooling ball and point so the shoulder diameter (.46") of the tooling ball is at 0

make toolpaths

realize there is no such thing as associativity apparently and your toolpaths are out in space or through your expensive fixtures/parts

make post to see if anyone experiences the same thing as you to make sure you are not completely insane and your definition of associative is correct

1 hour ago, gcode said:

Not sure what your are trying to do

The associative check box on the 30 degree TP was not checked.

I reselected to point and the associative box became checked

If the 30 degree tool plane is active and I try yo move the tooling ball to the origin nothing happens because the tooling ball at the origin of "30 degree holes"

If I make Top active and moving the tooling ball to the origin the tooling ball moves and the point changes to 0,0,0,

 

 

You cannot get that stupid associative checkbox to work period like Dave said, it just won't.

When I move the tooling ball and point I do it when I am in top view just like you did i just didn't write that step out. In versions prior to 2019 when I moved the tooling ball and point associated to the plane "30deg holes" it would keep the associativity and move the values with that point. This is what has been broken since 2019.

On 7/6/2020 at 5:11 PM, Chally72 said:

I just tried this workflow in 2021 and yes, this does work with wireframe entities. It does not work if trying to associate the plane to a solid autocursor point, and if you do accidentally click on a solid autocursor point while trying to associate the plane, it will permanently break association functionality for that plane. The workaround is to create a plane "From Solid Face", whereupon solid entity association works as expected. That's all the 'gotchas' I know of- hope that helps.

So I just had my first experience with this in 2021 and associativity is still broken. I'm attaching the file for an example.

I setup a tooling ball on level 301 and created a tool plane called "30deg holes" from a point I created in the center of my tooling ball. Now I want to move that tooling ball to 0,0,0 and the numbers do not follow the point making the association broken.

If this doesn't work the same for anyone else let me know because I am really tired of dealing with this.

2B-78802 3RD OP.mcam