MC can be a little combersome for designing. As far as compatibility with solid woks it is very good. MC can now read solidworks files directly without having to creat a parasolid or iges file. There is also the MC to solid work direct switch. If a revision is made to a file that is already programmed when you open up that file Mc will tell you what changes have been made. I haven't needed it yet but am waiting to try it.

MCX MR1 I've got two very similar electrodes I'm working on. I programmed the first one just fine. Then I brought the second electrode in on a different level. Created a new operation group. Then copy and pasted all my operations to that new group. Then applied the second electrodes geometry to the copy and pasted operations. One of my operations is a flowline toolpath. When I apply the new geometry for that toolpath the surfaces from the first electrode show up on what I thought was the new level but it turns out that it puts this geometry on EVERY level. I can't select it to delete it. I can't even analyze it. How do I get rid of these lines?

Thanks, got it.

I know this isn't the solidworks site but I'm sure someone can help me with this minor problem. I'm filling in for someone on vacation and I haven't used SW in about 2 versions. How do I change my dimension text height on a dwg. I think it used to be tools/options... I get lost from there.

Thank you!

In the operations manager I sometimes assign a name to an operation. When I post, that name appears in the g code which is great if you are not running a Hurco. Is there any way to switch it off? That is without manually editing it. Also putting it in parethesis does not work on Hurco either.

I know the classes seem like a lot of money, but when I completed the CAD certification course at the local community college, I got a pay raise that has made the initial cost and extra effort well woth it.

X2 on the crystallume end mills. That PVD coating makes the end mill last soooo long. Their web site has good cutting speeds and feeds that I have also used for uncoated carbide EMs too. We run about 750-1000 sfm.

I think this verifies your theory, Betts. One model is ok and the other is not.

Heres my work around. I created a simple model, and brought it in on a different level. I applied the facing toolpath to it and the linerazation tolerance was greyed out. Then when I regened that toolpath it changed the tolerance to 0. Then I hid that simple model and brought in the problematic model on my usual level. I then applied the facing tool path to the problem model and it used the defaults from the previous operation instead of the default library. I don't know where this -number in the linerazation tolerance came from, but this is how I'm getting around it.

I'm running into errors today that I have not experienced before. I bring my parasolid model in and locate it. I select toolpath/face/solid, I select the face click done, select a tool, set the tool parameters. When I go to the facing parameters the trouble starts. As soon as I click anywhere on that page I get the dreaded "mill9.exe has generated errors and will be closed by windows. you will need to restart the program. An error log is being created". I also noticed, and belive the problem is, this weird number in the "linerazation tolerance" box. Theres this huge negative number (-907373616)there. I went to my operational defaults and its there also. When I try to change it in the op defaults I get the the error and the boot just like before. I've rebooted. I've tried opening up existing files that I know work with no problems, and no problem. I've brought in new models with no problem. What now?

Hey Threept82, You might want to check at a local community college bookstore. My college has a student version of SW. If i remember right you can't print from it, but everything else works the same. I think it was about 90 dollars.

Midwest, on your pocket toolpath, go to the "Roughing/Finishing parameters" tab and check "lead in/out" and assigning parameters to it and you will solve the wierd XY loop problem. SWG 18 will solve the loops in Z and lead in/out will solve XY loops

Midwest, We had that problem also. I believe that the "Z axis wild radiuses" problem is solved by changing the swg 18 variable to a 1.

pip, I have had the same problem before. It seems to always happen when using cutter comp. Its the lead in/out that it has problems with. I go in and change those values and repost. See if that will work for you.

Paul, we have two HURCO ultimax VMC's. We do a lot of 3-D work we send the code via ethernet. The mphurco post is what we use, and select industry standard from the options on the touch screen. If these Hurcos are similar that should work for you.

What are you using for cutting speed and chip load?

What does this test really prove? Hard drive or RAM capabilities? What part does the video card play in the processing time? Do the allocation setting come in to play with this? Just asking, because my computer is running really slow. I ran almost three minutes on this test. I know my computer is out of date...800MHz 512MB Nvidia Gforce...but I would still like to get the best performance out of it till I get a new one.

Anyone know what the system requirements for X are going to be?

I usually have go3s present in other programs so I imagine my post supports that.

Ok, my understanding of filtering is.... instead of cutting a curve point to point to point, it throws in a go3 and keeps the toolpath smooth. So how come my code has no go3? my machine is stuttering trying to process a million lines of code that should be a few simple go3s. I'm using surf/fin/constant scallop. Filter tolerance settings are as follows. filter ratio 2:1 filter tolerance .00013 cut tolerance .00007 total tolerance .0002 one way filtering, arcs in xy, xz,and yz checked. min arc rad .001 and max arc rad 100. If I open up these tolerances, will it then be smooth? Will the part shape still be accurate?

What all is involved? Simple core & cavity, or slides multi cavities and so on. I don't want to get bogged down myself.

You can probably move the two parts to where they are touching each other but should not be able to seperate them.

I have asked this question before. Only replys were work arounds. I would love to hear another way. Sooooo...

Thanks