I meant that you should be able to crank the feed up to get less tool life but more cutting done. But yeah, when we are talking long cut times it is kind of silly to shoot for more tool changes. On some short run, quick cycle time jobs I will crank the feeds up to get the job done sooner.

I always end up having this conversation with the folks I work with. Is 90 minutes to long for those inserts? Sometimes I would argue that is too long and you aren't getting your moneys worth. I know some people who shoot for 20 minutes of life all the time. It's harder for me to justify 20 minutes of edge life when practically everything I program/make takes north of 20 hours to complete now a days and all the bosses want is for the tool to stay cutting, less tool change/index time.

Lol I don't like their catalog either. The only reason the boss will not order Sandvik is because he hates trying to find anything in there.

I used to use the crap out the mits AJX but I switched to iscars medium high feed H600 mills. I can get 6 indexes off 1 insert with those and still feed the same as ajx with more DOC. The reason these tools can offer .040" chiploads is because of the insert geometry. I cannot for the life of me find this really neat picture I had of the process but because of the insert geometry as it enters the material the chip maintains a constant chip engagement. Its not instant engagement for the whole insert like a rectangular insert. Its got a nice gradual lead in built right into the insert shape. The main problem I have with these tools is explaining to people they really need to be engaged in the material (I shoot for 60% engagement all the time). Everyone wants to use them to side mill their 3" tall blocks cause it goes reaaaal fast... silly people.

Yeah we are way above and beyond the book recommended feed and speed for that tool . I think the book is 1xD and like 40ipm. We plugged in these numbers to the sgs calculator (really good calc btw) divided the feed in half and started there. Now I just need to get the folks here to let me go faster till I break it. http://www.sgstool.com/content.aspx?contentId=FractionalSquareCornerRadiusEndMillCalculators Jeff have you tried their Fantom mills? I was really trying to get some in from them and they were a bit more expensive than the garr.

Im currently running 1/2" and 3/4" V5's in 316L stainless, waterjet cut. They are 110" long 3/4" thick and about 1in wide (it looks like a really looong picture frame with fancy angles). 1/2 with .03 rad (EDP 50107) V5 102ipm(.0089ipt), 2292 rpm(300sfm), 7%(.035") stepover, 1/2 doc with dynamic contour. Cut is roughly 1h 1min a part and we are getting 11 parts per end mill. I honestly believe I could double that feed and still be in that 40$ tools wheelhouse and still make a killing but the powers that be are happy as it is right now. We had the niagra/seco folks in today and they want us to do an apples to apples change with their tool to test. Their tool has 7 flutes instead of 5 and I am betting it costs more $$$ but we will see.

Never once in the 20 years I have been doing this have I seen a control ignore the comp line and continue to comp while making the actual cut without the code to support it. I use wear, and I often times use tools that are a lot bigger than what I programmed (ex: programmed for 1/2, end up using a 3/4 with comp). So long as that first line the entry comp line has enough room to move you cannot see a tapered comp cut across your part. The code just isn't there to do that. Now, if you were to go full retard and put a 1in tool in where I programmed a 1/2 tool then yes you are going to have some serious problems. edit:: I do typically like to give a nice 30 degree with arc on/off on most cuts but there are plenty of toolpaths that are just straight on and off.

Does that mean the maintenance release for 2017 or something like 2018 release Bill?

Are the toolpaths you selected to make the setup the same name? I get duplicated tools when I try and make 1 setup sheet from 2 different programs with different names.

wrong post

Why so much work instead of verify>remove chips>stl>stock model? There absolutely should be a button to remove chips in stock model. It was brought up and discussed during whatever public beta version stock models were introduced. Nothing came from it of course. It has always been one of the things holding me back from using them more.

I do put all my models in my files because I also make setup sheets and tool lists using pretty pictures of stuff. Yeah, it does get a lot bigger and slower but I need to challenge the IT guy occasionally

I turn it off for this reason. There were a few days this happened though not just 1.

I just don't get why we need an 18 page document to make things easier. 18 pages needed to explain this? Ive seen all the arguments for and against the ribbon bar back when microsoft decided to foist it on office users and it seemed to boil down to the ribbon interface is easier for the programmer to maintain the ribbon and it has absolutely no quality of life improvements for the user. It seems that way to me but I just stick with my right click menu so most of this ribbon jazz doesn't apply to me.

This burned me as well. I am a habitual WCS copier and I had to break myself from this habit and start using "Create From" in the Plane Manager instead of "Copy". Don't try to machine a feature with G57 when it's programmed to G55

Yeah I can do the calculations for mmc in the main box and mmc on 1 datum. I cannot however get that "factor in" math to add in the 3rd mmc tolerance to figure out what the actual min and max are. Like what is the maximum deviation from nominal if my hole is made at the smallest and BOTH of my datum holes are made to the smallest size? Everyone keeps telling me to let the software do the calculations. Well someone wrote that software what math did they use to program pc dmis I was just curious as to how exactly its calculated.

Yeah E and F are holes (A is bottom of part, E is a long hole in Y and F is a hole for X). I just make that counter bore to nominal and its all good but I wanted to know what my total tolerance was with all 3 of those mmc calculated together.

We are taking some GD&T training and I asked the instructor how do you calculate this feature with 3 MMC in this feature control frame. He said he would look into it but the gist of his answer was "its non linear, let pc dmis do the calculation". I told him I want to know how its done even if it takes massive amounts of calculus or something. So, anyone have a simple answer to this?

Welcome to troll central JVizzi. You are guilty until proven innocent! Strap in and enjoy the ride!

Funny... I saw the thread title and thought this was going to be a topic for my shop.

So I am getting kinda bored and I was thinking about making a new post(s) for my machines. Should I wait for the next version of mastercam to start fiddling around with a new post? I noticed there wasn't an x9 post version here thinking maybe you guys are waiting for the next version?

I really don't want to work with STL models because it just keeps getting worse. Is there a way I can translate, mirror, rotate or import them into another software? Until these things happen I am stuck with STL.

This question has come up many times and we've had many heated talks about this subject I still stick with depends on the job and the guy working on said job.

Its added more work is all. With Xform STL I just click that function, pick my stl, move it and save it all without interrupting the current file I have open. Now I have to import the stl and use standard xform tools then export it back out as an stl. Working with stl files are becoming harder and harder.

1st choice - http://www.mitsubishicarbide.net/mmus/enus/ 2nd choice - http://www.sumicarbide.com/