There are people out there running Mill Turns in Mastercam. So you could set up an MP post for this, but unless you have a lot of experience running one you will find the programming/posting difficult as there is no provision for debugging wait codes. Postability offer some high functionality Mill Turn post in MP but again they state quite clearly that the granular output cannot be guaranteed under all conditions. And of course they are "binned". The new MT modules show promise, and I believe they have machine environments for the Moris. This is an entirely new add on and has a synch manager page to control the wait codes. The problem is that it is fairly new and Mastercam has it locked down pretty tight (can't say I blame them). This means you are somewhat at the mercy of the skills of your reseller, or their willingness to kick the stuff they can't handle up to CNC corporate. However they make their money providing these services (they don't make much on seats) so there is a natural reluctance to give up the revenue stream to corporate. I have seen a well set up MT module work and it is pretty slick. I would definitely run some sort of CAV as well tho', regardless of which method (or even software for that matter) you use, especially the B axis head machines.

I think an example of the code the machine reads might be helpful here. You will need some kind of modified / edited post to give your desired output, whether it is possible (or more likely how much work is involved) depends on how much your code differs from the available posts.

If you shout just a little louder JP will be able to hear you...

Contour. Other than that it really depends on what the dovetail is used for.

Still doesn't answer the question of is what he is working on actually supporting MIT (given MITs direct access to masteram corporate) or a supplemental income stream for himself, which question seems to have been evaded.

Do you use boot and bonnet up there too?

You might want to try Guhring, those guys have got me out of trouble on things like this. Although modern carbide is "sharper" than in days of yore, HSS can still be sharpened to a finer edge which might give you easier penetration, they do some long split point and parabolic tips that might help you out here. The carbide is more rigid, to be sure, but it just might not be the best compromise here. You are definitely "out of the boat" so be open minded (you seem to be that already). The "3 point" appearance is not unlike the holes you can make in sheet if you use a drill point that penetrates the far side before picking up the full diameter so the chip doesn't form properly, this could also be caused by the point building up pressure before finally it penetrates the surface. But now again your chip formation is not "timed" properly. If the HSCO can penetrated more freely then the stability might be maintained, if you can balance the tool pressure with the helical effect. It might also broaden out your machining parameter "window", which will be relatively narrow whatever you come up with.

I just can't imagine keeping a stable cut going on a high aspect ratio like that at much more then 500 - 600 rpm (probably less) until you have at least 1.5D engaged. What kind of drill are you using, have you tried Guhring Technical guys? Carbide or HSCo? I have seen long shank and relatively short flute length drills which might be a little more rigid if you can get them in that size. Have you dialed in the drill like a reamer? If you drop the spot drill you will almost certainly need to make a flat on the cast surface. Holes are nothing but misery, my mentor used to assure me.

I situations like that I always like to request that they move the hole closer to the wall just for the challenge. That usually gets them going...not necessarily in a helpful way...what's the material?

That's 30+D. Generally piloting should start at 9D for best results.

One of the main reasons I use Mastercam is because it allows programming dept. to tune itself to the problem at hand. Although we are an aerospace job shop, we make a specialized product, swaged tubes with a gazillion derivatives. Our machining problems are not the same as a typical structural hog out shop and our code and machine set ups reflect that,... customization.

Looks like it could be an offset issue. Make sure your Tool info is coherent, in other words is it a left or right hand tool and do I have the correct offset direction for the cut I am making. Not being correct in this regard gives the output you are seeing.

After for Mills so the set up guy isn't getting a shower. Dwell on drill cycles to allow the high pressure coolant to come on (in post for machines that have it). Mixture in lathes, some of our drill motors require coolant on to spool them up, so before for those.

You will have to provide more info. Base post? Control?

I could use one of those for the coffee making machine, as few of the humans have been able to master it.

Might be mistaken but I think there have been some UV manipulation tools for some time, might be more functionality now.

He has been in the PacNW, too. At this very company. I wish he would at least title the universal level. A part number might be nice.

To add to gcodes comments it also gives you a permanent source file which an be used for other machines and can be easily edited for similar parts. I do aerospace job shop work and the company has had Mazaks for a number of years using Mazatrol. Despite adding a new one a couple of years ago they have finally decided to abandon ship especially as we are approaching post and go from the programming dept so we are exposing some of the short comings of the conversational machines. But as JP says it really depends on your work, aerospace job shop is reasonably unique.

Try CAD file. Just run the simulation up to the previous OP and save the .stl and use that.

What are you using, previous tools or CAD file for your rest material?

Not untypical. Does this op have a "restore defaults" or "save to defaults" dialog as in 3d High speed? If so I have had luck using the restore defaults to nudge it out of its rut. Often have to start from scratch

Ball nose cutters allow you to deburr in 3D and will work well for your superfine edgebreaks. 3D Contour.

We use all the ones I mentioned in aluminum and steel. The crosscut deburr tools are fine for beburr, but I wouldn't do surface finish work with them. We use them to deburr hexes on the ends of tubes with tangential wire-lock holes in Inconel. We do all the edges and corners and the wire-lock entrance and exit holes. They are properly ground tools so they are dimensionally accurate. The crosscut pattern increases the effective number of cutting edges (flutes) and allows bi directional feeding, which speeds things up. The parts look great but we are only doing an .006 - .01 rad or edge break with those.

We use the Double Angle , relieved (and unrelieved) balls and back and front rad tools. We also use the ballnose version of the illustrated tool for "tight" corners and fine work. All from Harvey.

How the model is constructed can have a profound affect on your ability to apply toolpaths directly to it, mainly due to how accurately the faces are constructed and trimmed together. Hence why many people use derived geometry as Ron suggests. Untrimming a surface derived from the solid can also make things easier. As for file transfer, parasolid is considered to be the most bullet proof protocol but as far as I know saving as a parasolid in itself does not affect the quality of the solid.