I thought this was fixed by using the 'force 5 axis' (or something like that) in the simulator settings?

I'll be damn&*! Good to know. Are they new products or just seldom used?

Where do you find this? Just curious I have never seen anything specced on the helicoil other than insert style, coating, length, etc. So you are saying there is a (for example) 10-32 helicoil that would require a different drill size and tap, not counting the varying drill size for material (usually very minimal) and the class of fit tap like 2b or 3b? I have a downloaded pdf of their (helicoil's) catalogue and don't see anything about this...

I'll refrain from blaming anyone or anything, but I have to ask how many people realistically check their tap before using it? I know if I ordered a 1/2-13 tap and it came in a little package marked 1/2-13 and it was engraved/etched 1/2-13 and it was from a known brand I sure would not have checked it. True enough maybe the plate should have been thread gaged in inspection somewhere... This surely falls in the 'holy crap how did this f*&%ing happen?!' category. On a side note, how long did it take you figure out it was a metric thread? I think I would have been scratching my head for a long time on this one.

Hey just wanted to say thanks for all the good information. I have used the level manager since day one, but not in some of the ways I saw mentioned and I got some great ideas from the pros here. I always used to use the EA manager to separate solid, surface, wireframe, etc, and then change the colors of each 'group'. Then I might have levels for a new solid (or any 'user' created geo) created for a certain toolpath (like omitting holes so you have a nice smooth parallel path or whatever). I never even thought to put entities from groups of toolpaths onto different levels. Awesome idea, implementing this on the file I am programming now!

How do you get Accupro endmills from Fastenal?? I thought Accupro was MSC's own brand? FWIW anyone that pays MSC list is crazy, I think that is the root of the problem of peoples complaint that they are sooo outrageous. Call the local salesman (or follow their online specials, usually run 30% off a few times a month) and he will give you discounts. We (at a large company) are working towards a straight 40% off list deal...

I am having a problem in X8 with the stock model. I have the build from Sept 22 (under the help>about tab), pretty sure I downloaded the latest version... So if I verify a part and save it as an stl it looks like garbage when I use the file as the stock model. Oddly, if I use the stock model toolpath and generate it from source operations it looks fine. If I take that stock model (generated from the source operations and stock setup) and right click and export to stl it looks fine as well. Any ideas? I have my save as stl tolerance at .005 in the mastercam simulator defaults. I don't know if the probelm is repeatable in other files yet, but I did try and restart MCX and that didn't help. I vaguely remember seeing this a little in X7 too... Would the geometry of the part affect any of this? It was a .step import FWIW. The part itself is fairly small, 1/2x2x6 roughly, but it does have a lot of small features. I can't post any pics or files because it is ITAR controlled. Thanks for any help

+1 to air blast and dry cutting! We were running a 1/2 dataflute in steel and found airblast is the best tool life, 2nd best tool life was nothing at all, and last was flood coolant. Sometimes coolant is your enemy.

awesome! thanks for the heads up, I also had this issue and was wondering WTH?!

Not one mention of the simulator default settings and where/how to change them ..? Not sure if they are in the "shared" or "my" mcx folder, but there is an xml file that has the settings. Make sure your precision setting is not high, not sure what the default is. You could try setting it to something like .7 or so and see if that helps. The visual quality will be bad, but it should run faster. Hopefully someone else can chime in as I don't know a whole lot about the settings, but I remember there are some changes that can be made for slower systems.

Good suggestion, I will look next time. I do know it moves pretty rapidly between the backfeed of 500ipm and the feed of 107ipm. I don't know how accurate this will be either. I appreciate all the input, but none of it really addresses why it is so far off.I completely understand that the Haas cannot accel/decel fast enough to actually get to the programmed feedrate. I understand that completely, but my basic question then goes back to why isn't any of that addressed inside the backplot? Or I should say inside the software when you choose your machine. If this is something that can't be overcome, then fine so be it. SO I guess if the backplot time is off, can I trust the machine simulation?? Again so I am clear I am not "blaming" Mastercam, I am asking why it does not reflect the issues that keep the Haas machines from reaching their programmed feedrate. I'm not saying it's Mastercam's fault that the Haas cannot do what is programmed, just wondering why it is not compensated for. Also, I would love some clear answer to this so I can present it to the boss. When I backplot something I don't need him to see that time estimate and plan my work around it...

I stated in my original post about accel and decel... I understand it plays its part and that was my question. You answered first about using a G187, and then your 2nd post went into I was fighting the "kinematic limitations of the Haas" and "the problem is the machine, not Mastercam" "it's servos, etc are inferior to more expensive machines" I never said anything bad about Mastercam, I just asked why the big difference... and I thought it would be close if I was using the correct machine, which I stated I wasn't but I thought it would be pretty close since it was still a Haas. So you say Mastercam doesn't account for any of that, then why bring it up?? I do however thank you for the link, I will check that out. Again, I was just asking the question of why they are different. I am well aware a Haas will never perform up to a Mazak or Matsuura...

I see K2csq7. It's a relatively small area with some funky corners. Now that you bring it up there is probably not room to ramp up to full speed, but it is a 1/8 cutter, so I dunno... looks like the longest feed move would only be about 1.3-1.5". FTI2007 - I don't have a whole lot I can say at this point. I am waiting to get our MCX seat upgraded to multiaxis and get the UMC-750 post and machine simulation. So right now I am mostly just programming it more or less like a rotary axis and doing alot of hand editing <yay> . I do know a few things I will pass on - (1) The pendant design sucks on this, you can clearly see they did not put any thought into this and just tacked on the same thing as they use on the VF series and lathes. If you have run older Haas, remember when they changed the pendant from the overhanging to the kind that is like a medicine cabinet that swings open and has shelves behind it? In the closed position you faced the control and doors in the same direction. That was awesome because you could swing the control 90deg (kind of boxing you in ) and have nice access to it and be able to work inside the enclosure. Well, on the UMC they just tacked it on the side so when it is in the closed position it is 90deg AWAY from the operator and when you open it all the way up it faces at you, meaning you need extra long arms to reach the control and be inside the enclosure. We did get the remote jog handle with the fancy LCD screen, but even that seems awkward for some reason.... (2) The door is really really heavy. Seriously, when loading/unloading alot of tools and you have to close and open the door for each one it gets old fast.

I am aware of the E value, it was changed to .05" , although I am not sure what the threshold is before I start getting crappy toolpath corners or gouging. I also know the drilling is not correct, but I expected the milling to be a little better than 1/2?! As to the comment "Arc fitting will help but at the end of the day you're still running a Haas." well, that really doesn't have much to do with my question I think. I know it has limitations and I really don't want to go into the "Haas Hating", I was merely asking a question about the backplot time. So I guess in turn I have to ask, what is the value of the backplot time if it doesn't reflect something close to what the machine can do?? I just now changed the machine and it went from 5min 32sec (remember I doubled the stepover from the 10min cycle) to 15min 44sec. The only noticeable difference I see is that the max feedrate on the machine I swapped in was 300 ipm vs the 500 (on the back feedrate in the 2d highspeed path) that was programmed for the Haas, so I could see maybe the time going to 8 or 9 min, but it tripled by changing machine so Mastercam must be doing some calculations based on the machine vs. just calculating linear inches and feedrate... right?

I can't, but I can tell you the original size (in the toolpath display inside the Op manager) was about 2990k. I changed my stepover to 10% which more or less halved my file size to 1484.2k.

I did not use G187 in the program, but I changed that parameter to rough and ran it, it shaved about 4 minutes off the cycle. I am running a part now (I ran without a part to check time only) to see how accurate it will be using the "rough" setting. G187 P1 or P2, P3 is just a temporary override for parameter 191, you can also change the setting inside the parameters page.

Thanks for the tip. I just checked and we do have the HSM package on our machine (at least its on the quote! ). The UMC is supposed to have something like 4second chip to chip, but even if I add 10 seconds for toolchange on this particular program that only would account for 1 extra minute. It does not appear to be slowing down visually, but thats a guess. I am going to run again with the smoothness set to rough, corner rounding to .05", and see if that affects anything....

I was wondering if anyone else is seeing large discrepancies between the time shown in the backplot menu under the info tab and the actual time on machine?? I know machine configurations like tool change and max rapids, deceleration, acceleration all play their part, but shouldn't it be close if you are using the correct machine (in your machine group inside mastercam I mean)? I would like to add up front as I just said this, I don't have my correct machine at the moment (Haas UMC-750) but I am using the generic Haas renishaw 4axis VMC. I can't see there being much difference between the 2 if I am just doing 2axis or 3axis work. I can't post a file or anything due to work rules. I am cutting a 2d high speed path with an 1/8 endmill, 107ipm, 5% max stepover and its is showing a total cycle time of 10min 49sec. I am showing 22min 10 sec on my machine. The machine is at 100% rapid and 100% feed and all that. FWIW my machine only records the time during cycle start so if I feed hold anything (which I did not on this toolpath) it pauses so the machine clock should be pretty accurate. I have never checked it to a stop watch, but at over 2x what Mastercam says I couldn't see the clock being that far off anyways. I just finished the entire program and the difference between mastercam backplot and machine clock is just under 13min. That said, it looks like all the toolpath times are almost twice as long to run on the machine... any ideas? Looking forward to hearing from you guys! Thanks!!

Love what you said about not having any comments, that drives me nuts!! It really just takes seconds to type "rough mill feature a" or "remachine pocket on left face" Had a guy tell me one time that mastercams stock facing routine didn't work right so he drew his own geometry to face stock?!?

Hmm... I can't say anything that hasn't been said but I will put my perspective on it. G98= return to initial Z, for example if you program G43 H1 Z5. G98 G81 Z-.65 R-.5 your drill will rapid from the 5. to what your R value is and then rapid back up to the 5. (which would be over the top of your islands) then move to the next position. G99= return to R plane, so if your code is G43 H1 Z5. G99 G81 Z-.65 R-.5 it will rapid to and from the R value of -.5 (which would crash into your islands) then rapid to the next positon. I have seen this before where another Z value before the drill cycle gets posted so that becomes the initial which can cause problems like this - G43 H1 Z5. Z.1 <-- this has now become the initial Z value which will screw you up if you are thinking it will rapid back to the 5. G98 G81 Z-.65 R-.5

Hello all, I know several versions (what system should I buy, what processor, etc.) of this discussion have been around, but I am not finding what I am looking for. On Mastercam's website they list their recommended system specs as follows - Windows 7/8 64bit professional Intel i7 processor (no clock speed or # of cores called out) 16gb memory Nvidia quadro with 512mg dedicated memory 250gb ssd After this listing they give some more details and even go on to say " For large toolpath generation and simulation we recommend 16 GB or even 32 GB of RAM." So I have a couple of questions, or maybe it is more of a complaint... First, why don't they say 32gbs of ram in the top section where it says "Recommended" ?! Second, the video card is the lowest (slowest?, not sure how to phrase) quadro card that is offered, is it really enough to work with Mastercam? Bottom line, are the recommended specs "good enough" for most work? I know there are alot of variables so I can see it being hard to pin down a "good" system without knowing the work, but I wonder if Mastercam shouldn't address this with maybe a tiered system depending on average file size or 3 axis vs 5 axis toolpaths. So can someone help me out with these specs? The reason I am asking (not that I think it will make much difference to the IT guys in charge) is my boss asked a reseller for some advice and he (the reseller) said Mastercams recommended specs are fine, but maybe get more ram if you can. So if they get me the basic (cheapest!) i7 is it going to choke on bigger files?I am concerned that I am going to get the bare minimum and have issues. We will be doing 5 axis work, probably not much full 5 axis, more 3+2, but I want my system to be able to handle the full 5 axis when I need it. Right now I am running a quadro 4000 and a xeon e5-2609, 16gb ram. I see some problems when I get to around 50mb files, but I know I have some issues with this pc that need to be looked at. So all of that said, I would appreciate any help with my current system to help it run better and any input regarding a new build. Thanks everyone!

I can't speak to resharpening, but we used to run some cutter bodies that would use the other edge of a typical 2 edged insert. Something like an apkt, I doubt this is any use to you, but thought I would throw it out there....

I understand now, would it matter? I can't say for sure on the files I had problems with, but I think I had it set to Pro-E files. Do you think it might behave differently if it is set to All Files? I normally only use this to sort files if I am in a cluttered folder or whatnot, instead of seeing every file that is in the folder... I will try playing with this next time it comes up. Thanks for all the help!

Pete, I am running X7 MU2. I am not sure I am following you, is there something I can change in Mastercam related to "all files"? Millman, I have seen/am seeing the same randomness regardless if it is on a network drive or my hard drive.

Pic enclosed with the error message. It does happen on any file, I know what you're talking about with the version numbers, this doesn't have any effect I have seen. I have only tried to open the .prt extension, not the assemblies. I have not tried opening any of them in X8 beta. note: This is the exact file I tried opening yesterday that wouldn't, and today it did.