Pretty much that simple in Mastercam too. All you are doing is modifying the address on a defined and formatted variable, pretty basic post editing really. The difference is that Mastercam allows you to do that and much (much, much.....) more in an "open framework" programming system, which is why Mastercam programmers use Mastercam (despite its flaws, and all the GUIs have flaws).......welcome to the "bigs". But that wasn't the original problem was it.....?

Cutter comp is like holes, nothing but misery, as my old mentor / foreman said often. It doesn't happen often but I have come across situations where cc just didn't work and caused machine to alarm. Everything appeared to be fine, end - start points etc.....followed by hours of downtime trying to figure it out. At that time I was working in one of the last Boeing spares sub-contractors. That was all we did ....spares. 6 parts was a big order, soft set-ups the name of the game. We just couldn't afford to waste time on these unexplained stoppages so we ran on the equivalent of computer comp (we were running an APT system). When you set up a job you measured your cutters and entered the diameters in the source program and posted. If you needed to make an adjustment you altered the value in the source and reposted, we had totally bullet proof posts. At the end of the job you deleted the G - code file, we never stored them. It was the most "hassle free" machining I ever participated in. Unfortunately it is totally unsuitable for "production work" as opposed to what was essentially prototyping. Although we are trying to implement the no stored G - code files ( the only way to control the machinists who think they just have to edit the program their way, for no good reason except personal preference), here the no cutter comp just wouldn't work in our normal "job shop" environment. So I guess the best thing I can say about cc is that it is an unfortunate necessity in most situations.....although I still only use it on finish cuts.

That maybe so, and you could also say the same for dragging and dropping (or copy / paste) source programs from one folder to another. However I now NEVER do that. Open the File and do a Save As......because it is the safe and reliable way to do it, as I found out when it reversed an entry on me and scrapped an expensive part..... Of course it is a pain when something you have relied upon stops working......my sympathies. I guess I was spared the heartache because the guy's who taught me Mastercam always emphasized reliability and safety, so a lot of things that some people use I have never really adopted because of warnings (and hard knocks as above).

Me too........and don't forget simplifying all the splines........does it do that automatically?

Is it View dependent ? So from Right Side you could be in 2D....?

Another option is the Save Some, followed by Merge/Pattern if you don't want the whole file. Always been bullet proof for me, and checks for duplicates too......

I use pstock$ calls to tell leave stock condition for all toolpaths in the op comments, I think I had to add a couple of parameter extractions to get it to work for ALL toolpaths.

And herein lies the rub. If you are already committed to one of these techniques it is incredibly hard work to change, not only have you got the volume of committed programs to consider but you will also be changing the "culture" on the shop floor. I was involved with converting a shop to centerline programming which had been in business for 30 yrs. The resistance of the operators/machinists was huge. Luckily we had full management backing. For 18 months it was like pulling teeth without anesthetic, when we finally hit a critical mass of programs the floor guys came to realize they actually had just as much control and all they really had to worry about setting was TLOs. I remember asking one of the biggest original nay-sayers if we should go back to rotation macros and the reply was "Why would we want that nightmare back......" It's tough......

What are you hand tapping with? Form taps often work harden the surface which makes re-tapping difficult. If re-tapping with a cut tap your customer will probably spot it and reject the parts as they give a different thread form.....especially if they are picky about their threads. They might be specifying form taps for the higher strength they provide , especially in small holes. you should be able to find form tap drill sizes from various sources (Machinists Handbook). They are always bigger than cut tap sizes because you are displacing material, not cutting material away.

And this is the other problem with running comp in control. What if your feature requires a shorter lead in because of its geometry but you need a larger diameter endmill than the comp in control requires? Much less flexible IMHO, nothing more annoying than a cutter gradually comping itself as it does a profile because there was not enough room to buy the initial comp...... This and Centerline vs. Macro rotation calculations on 4 axis will always be a source of debate.....

The most common cause of this I have found from personal experience is the Min. Toolpath Radius should always be at least 2x the Stepover. Does it do an arc or straight cut when it violates the part?

300 series is pretty low grade compared to say 15-5 (real free machining), I would be more worried about impurities than anything else with a tap that small, so roll tap might help you out here.

Have you considered requesting larger and more complex parts from your customers.....?

Excellent....looks like you have all the components you need. Also search for "tool comments" and "operation comments" and you should be golden. I find the MP language docs quite arcane, even as an English first language person. I can't imagine what it would like for me if it were written in Norwegian.....!! Good luck!

So maybe the more accurate way to put it is that the digital data (of what ever type) takes precedence?

If you had "T35" where your brackets are would it do what you need automatically, that is stage the tool at that point?

Just as a matter of interest: In the Aerospace world MBD simply means what data source has the authority. If MBD then the model has the authority if there is a discrepancy between it and any print. CATIA (Boeing standard) normally has the solid dimensions on a separate level which we might or might not see, but our engineers will normally make what we call an IP (Inspection Print) which gives the dimensions extracted from the CATIA source file. We also have to be approved by Boeing to use MBD.

In situations like this I think I get more "bang for the buck" using 2D high Speed because it will deal with any corners in a "pocket" situation(albeit an open pocket here) more effectively, whereas Peelmill is a far simpler "repeating" toolpath, which also has its place, horses for courses and all that.....and of course personal preference....

There are several posts which deal with this sort of thing try a search and you will learn a lot, you should find several "worked examples". To extract the parameter use something like this: In the pparameter$ postblock if prmcode$ = 10027, sefendz = rpar(sparameter$, 1) #Capture top of stock for deep hole drill This is one I did to "highjacked" the Top of Stock parameter value for a custom drill cycle. You will also need to format it depending on how you use it: fmt "Z" 2 sefendz #Slow Entry Feed End Z In this case I am using it as a Z value to define a particular position within the drill cycle You are now ready to use the variable in post statements, for example: pbld, n$, *sg01, *sefendz, *feed, e$ #slow feed and speed entry into pilot hole Dive in and do some searches. I am always amazed with what I come across and end up making copies of many other things for future reference. P.S. I have relatives by marriage in Chritiansand, where are you?

Hey Jeremy, Show the code you want to see as well, (do you just need a T35 call where the brackets are?) and I will have a look first thing in the morning, been tough day......going home now

Get the MP language documentation for the best list of available operation parameters to extract. It will also help you in your forth coming challenge.

Try 2D High Speed instead of Peel mill. Use your avoidance boundary to force the direction of cut you want

Hey Jeremy, I think I have an idea, but I am pretty jammed up at the moment. Should be able to take a look later today. Will quote you again to let you know So close I think we can do it.... Cheers Nick

And maybe some good Active X training docs / vids too. There is so much potential in the system, but pulling it all together (especially for us late boomers who only got to use DOS in school / college) can be tough..... Just show me where to sign the petition......