It's actually not that hard; I modified my post to track tool usage and count so that when the same tool is used in different operations, it counts and modifies the sequence number. But Colin is right, it's not just a simple addition. You'll have to write a buffer (or a variable table), a postblock with the counting logic, and some logic in the right place in your post.

No, not HAAS, on Okuma and Fanuc. I was just tossing out the idea. I can do helix in any plane with arcs. If you can't do macros, I would suggest a looping sub program that just contains the arc move in incremental. I'm not familiar with HAAS controls, but on a Fanuc you can type M98 P750001, and it will call up subprogram 0001 and repeat it 75 times. In the subprogram would just be the line: G91 G3 J-.5 Z-.01 that makes it do a full arc and move down .01 at the same time; repeat it 75 times and boom you just helical interpolated. It's also easy to control because you only have to adjust that line and the start/end points in the main program. Obviously if you can't do 360 arcs you'll have to break it into quadrants; and if you have to linearize, your subprogram will be huge, but not as big as having to plot the whole bore, so still easier to adjust.

I use macros for all my hole interpolating / threadmilling / spiral milling, etc. on all our mills and live-tooled lathes, in any plane. It's easiest, makes the program small, and makes it easy for operators to adjust on the fly. Fortunately, all of our machines have the macro option.

My books say: G206 - G code Macro Function Call

Set it to whatever you want it to default to. Click on the "save parameters to defaults file" button in the upper left. Boom! Your operation parameters are saved to default.

Well hot diggity dam. That's pretty fancy! Thank you sir.

I'd like to see a "tool tip" in the operations manager list. When you have hundreds of operations, it's not possible to keep them all "expanded," but when you minimize the op you lose track of what tool it is, etc... I'd like to just hover over the op and have a tool tip box pop up and tell you the tool name, offset, and whether the coolant is on. Having to click each box to expand it, then minimize it just to find the tool / op I'm looking for can get tedious.

I guess that's my problem. Was always using Mill, now using Lathe is like taking a step back in time 20 years. It needs a major, major overhaul to bring it up to speed. Our reseller actually told me that it was overhauled for X8, but, I guess he was wrong. And for that, I want to step on his big toe. FIRMLY.

No more communications through MCX in 8. Check out the "whats new" pdf

Same old crappy, broken Lathe. I hate to bash on a forum, but come on. I love Mill, but Lathe makes me want to quit my job and work at McDonalds.

I don't have a super big request, just a brand new Lathe from the ground up, that's all.

I completely agree that it is well worth the investment. We had only one machine that had a probe on it, for years it was just that machine, using the in-control macros. Then one day we decided to splurge and outfit another machine with a probe, and got Prod+ for it. It was such an amazing improvement that within a few months we bought *four* more probes.

We use Sandvik Capto on our Multus and Macturns, and WTO for out other Okumas with VDI.

Zack is correct. We have a Renishaw on our Okuma Multus (and all our Daewoo VMCs) and any sort of coordinate rotation will either a) make the probe alarm out or make the probe do some wacky $4it. You either have to do it through the macro, or offline in Productivity Plus.

I use three monitors so it never really bothers me. However, as soon as monitors started going 16:9, I moved the taskbar to the side so it runs from top to bottom, not across the bottom like normal. On a wide-screen monitor it wastes too much space.

The part in red is exactly what OP is trying to avoid.

It's odd that you wouldn't have use_pitch you should have a variable named pitch, so on the line before your cycle output, put in this line: pitch = 1/n_tap_thds$ and replace *feed with *pitch in the output line. And never use * in a formula the way you typed it - the asterisk is used to force output into the final code; but in a formula it's used for multiplication.

Our Okuma HMC will clip corners if I have it at full rapid. Our Okuma lathes will clip corners if I have it at full rapid. Out Citizen swiss', our Daewoo VMCs, etc. will clip corners if you have it at full rapid. Absolutely none of these clips will show up in Mastercam. The acc/dec curve can't be compensated for in MC since it's directly related to how fast you go: the faster the rapid, the bigger the curve. Adjusting the acc/dec rates in the control is the only way to compensate, but then that defeats the purpose of a rapid move. I clipped a part once before I learned to never have a rapid move in or near a part. Especially since the common default for rapid is to move each axis as fast as it can go, to the next point. So your X might arrive first and your Y is moving in a straight line. How could Mastercam compensate for that? It's not only machine specific, not only control specific, it's parameter in the control in the machine specific. The only way to be sure is to program as high-speed interpolation, but even then you will have a curve unless you use a G9 or G61.

I just recently had the same problem, in a way--whenever I would do a canned rough with a boring bar, the U value would be negative. On our Okumas, the value has to always be a positive. I made this change in my post: in the lathe canned cycle end postblock prcc_call_end$, find the line xstckcc = xstckcc * xmult4 * lccdirx and change it to xstckcc = abs(xstckcc * xmult4 * lccdirx) (labels may be different depending on your post) Also, I'm not sure if you are asking about the stock to leave, but .010" per side is .020" in radial, so that number is correct. I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to make sure it was said. If that's not right depending on your machine, the problem is the multiplier (xmult4 in the above code.)

I hate to have to point it out, but that was the joke I was making. I was imagining an interior designer (Martha Stewart!) using Mastercam to plan where she wants to hang her drapes. Tough crowd....

Corner-rounding endmills are your friend. Harvey Tool has an excellent selection and I swear by them for all my micro-machining needs. For geometry that you can't get away with a CREM, I will usually do surface high speed > scallop on the fillet, and use the surface edges of the fillet as a containment boundary. It's not quick, but it works when the only other option is hoping the operator doesn't screw it up while hand deburring.

You know, for interior designers!

This is how I do it as well and what I would recommend. Another option would be to trim the toolpath, but you lose control over entry and exit path when doing that (it's a last resort).

Point toolpaths aren't just for drills. It's for anything you want to move from a point to another without creating a line or chain. If you draw your points, and then select the point toolpath, you will get the options of picking where you want to start and were you want to move to, using either a G1 or a G0 move. You can then move from that point to any other point. You control your feed and speed the same as normal. Be careful though. The point toolpath is a very useful function, but I feel it's very... "unfinished" for lack of a better word. Once you start picking points, take extra care to ensure you're picking the points in the right order. Unlike a regular toolpath, there is now clear way to view your chains or the order you picked things in. If you mess up, sometimes it's best to just start over. Best advice I can give is to start a new MCX, plot a bunch of points, and screw around with the toolpath until you understand how it works.

You should try doing the speed test and post your results. I can't remember where the thread is but you can search for it, and see what others have posted with their results. That way you can get a better handle on how X7 MU2 is performing for others versus for you. I for one have not noticed a significant difference between X6 and X7, neither for better or worse.