Bump still trying to fix this.

@Colin Gilchrist were you ever able to find the post with a fixed acceleration distance?

I'm trying to figure out how the post logic is working.
What is wrong is it is not using the value entered in the "acceleration clearance" area when a Lead-in angle is present.

Additionally I determined by second line Q value is wrong but I can't find where it does the math (thread depth/(Sqrt(number of passes)).
This appears to be what the *thdfirst$ is but that has no visible logic attached to it that I can find so far.

23 minutes ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

We often get new users who show up for help, but are using Pirated Software. Most of the users on this forum work for an employer who legally bought a Mastercam License, and in most cases they pay a "maintenance fee" to have access to the newest releases of the software.

The only danger in "first time poster", is that we don't know any history about the individual posting. I asked the question about his Reseller, because every legitimate Mastercam user will have a Reseller. If you didn't buy Mastercam through a licensed Mastercam Reseller, then you almost assuredly have a pirated copy of the software.

I really enjoy helping people on this forum, but I also want to be sure I'm not lending support to someone who isn't playing fairly. 

 

 

Understood. I have a legitimate copy, I just stopped with the maintenance.

On 8/19/2019 at 11:47 AM, Colin Gilchrist said:

Are you working with your Reseller for help with this issue? (Careful Nick. 1st time poster after all...)

For the uninitiated why does it matter that he's a first time poster?

Bump, still a problem.

11 minutes ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

Let me see if I can dig up the Post I had that contains the fix. I might still have something, but I can't make any promises yet.

I would really appreciate that if so. Even just to compare and make the appropriate edits to my post.

10 minutes ago, Colin Gilchrist said:

Tim Markoski (may he Rest in Peace) brought this up to me back when I used to work at CNC Software. Yes, this is broken. Try Posting the same path, with the latest version of MPLMaster, and the latest version of the Generic Fanuc 4X MT_Lathe Post.

Some Posts will have the old logic, and some use the new logic. I'm not sure if all the Lathe Posts were ever updated or not.

I think Tim had a sample NC Code generator that would calculate the taper values correctly. It's been so long now that I have trouble recalling all the details. 

I know how to do the math manually so I can change the value myself, i'm just trying to figure out how to fix my post so I don't have to do that.

I tested the latest MPLMaster post from here and it still does it

38 minutes ago, Tim Johnson said:

It's been a long time since I've used G76 but isn't the taper I-.3458? I seem to remember R is the chamfer amount.

I used to add .400 for my lead catch up amount but that was in the 90's. I started my taper at the +.400 start point also.

Yes, but you can see in the above that it added .0608 to the start value but the R value didn't change accordingly.

So I've got a weird post issue.

If I post out a G92 threading cycle the Z start point will match my acceleration distance as it should for example as .2.

If I post it out in G76 the start point is .2 with a lead in angle of 0.

but if I post it out with a lead in angle of anything other than zero it changes that Z acceleration distance but does not adjust the taper to suit.

Any one have any insight into what is going on here and how I can fix it? 

Examples:

With lead in angle at 30°

G0 T0303
G97 S380 M03
G0 G54 X4.2333 Z.2608 M8
G76 P010030 Q0030 R0030
G76 X3.7683 Z-3.95 P1325 Q0271 R-.3458 F.25
M9
G28 U0. W0. M05
M30

With lead in angle at 0°

G0 T0303
G97 S380 M03
G0 G54 X4.2333 Z.2 M8
G76 P010000 Q0030 R0030
G76 X3.7683 Z-3.95 P1325 Q0271 R-.3458 F.25
M9
G28 U0. W0. M05
M30

On 2/9/2019 at 8:01 AM, jlw™ said:

You can directly download the install file from the nvidia website too.

I was talking about the mastercam 2020 beta.

My account is linked but still doesnt let me download it. What gives?

Tried emailing support a week ago and never got a response.

16 hours ago, jlw™ said:

I have only minimally messed with lathe canned cycles.  They use a buffer and I was concerned with that being on the N100 line it would in in string3 from the buffer.  After a little digging it appears (in the Generic Fanuc 4x MT post anyway) that prapidout contains this. I also think it is being written to the buffer for string3 - idk but  I changed this highlighted portion to force Z and in MINIMAL testing got the output you want:

Code before:

Code after:

 

It appears as though, the logic in prapidout that this will only effect lathe canned cycles.  However, use and test to prove out.

 

If it gets any deeper than that, you'll need to wait on Colin to come around.

(Clips pictures for clutter reduction)

I am using the MPLMASTER lathe post. I've already made some modifications so it posts out G76 cycles correctly.

I'll give your change a try.

I have a post issue that I can't seem to fix.

Undercutting in canned roughing cycles on a Fanuc control. It is graphically represented correctly in the backplot but the post doesn't add the Z value to the first line after the canned cycle to tell the control it's a type II cycle. It seems like it's just an error because the control throws a monotonous error until I add the Z as shown below.

Mastercam Posts out this:

Quote

G71 U.08 R0.
G71 P100 Q110 U-.02 W.01 F.012
N100 G0 X3.3039 S600

And I need it to post out this for a type II cycle:

 

Quote

G71 U.08 R0.
G71 P100 Q110 U-.02 W.01 F.012
N100 G0 X3.3039 Z.1307 S600

Anyone have some insight?

Trying to mill a helical blade into a stabilizer. 

Tool I want to use is a 2" Seco High Feed Mill, It's limited to a .02" Axial DOC, but can do the full 2" width. It can not side mill whatsoever. 

So with not being able to side mill the tool basically needs to be from the "top" but not. 

Geometry has a radius at the bottom and the tool is mostly flat, I basically need a 3D core roughing result, with the rotary axis thrown in for the helix. 

I've tried multisurface, flow, and multi-axis roughing none have worked, multiaxis roughing seems like what I want but it will not generate me a toolpath at all. Tried a whole shwack of different parameters. 

Anyone have any ideas?
 

Does anyone know of a motorized rotary table or super spacer that can be retrofitted to a Mazak? I was wanting something like the link below but they can't guarantee that theirs will match up to our machine. We basically have some big disks that get a hole pattern drilled and tapped in the face and we don't have enough "Y" travel to get to the last hole. A manual one would still probably be faster than picking the part up with a lift and refixturing it.

 

http://www.tormach.com/store/index.php?app=ecom&ns=catshow&ref=multicat_8_Inch_Super_Spacers

 

Thanks

I'm using two different mazak mills with rotary tables, they're made by kitigawa. They came with the machines though.