10 hours ago, So not a Guru said:

Yep, the biggest legally mandated con game going!

I'm still not gonna commit fraud to get "stuff", especially since they have legions of lawyers and congressmen that work for them.

It was just a joke tho, I have no real concern about it.

That's the thing, it's not fraud if the accident caused damage to your property. Is it still functional? Maybe, but that's still damage that you are paying damage against. You bet that would come off your resale value.  Now the level of damage, sure - but depending on the investigator they'll just mark it as damaged, the office will look up the value and determine if you just get paid out to replace.  

That's wild Colin glad you and your family are safe.  Something to consider too is if say your TV is even scratched, you could submit a claim under renters insurance, new couch etc. It might feel a little bad because your stuff isn't wrecked, but you pay a lifetime into insurance for times like these, and people who are much more well off jump through much smaller hoops. Again glad everyone is safe because those pictures are scary

Just a followup to this - we had the same problem on 2019 pop up on a laptop, the workaround was it didn't have full Admin rights, we had to run as administrator

If you don't have a subprogram and the control is set to subprogram 'BEFORE' main,  an EXT file is posted, with a blank NC file.  Previous versions MPmaster didn't do this

On 10/26/2018 at 2:26 PM, jdkhunter1 said:

I did get this to work by imputing  //NCFILE/NCFILE-LONG INTO THE DataField. The only issue is the operations list repeat in a loop 3 or more times. I tried moving the location within the  setup sheet to no avail. 

You ever get this working? I have the path working out okay but it always puts an "NCI" in the the file extention so things post as:   *.NCI.NC  ...   this sucks because it hoses file paths

On 8/3/2019 at 11:06 AM, Colin Gilchrist said:

You need to run the Migration Wizard to update the files. It isn't just a copy/paste scenario, the files must be updated for each new version of Mastercam. Use the 'Advanced options', and you get to select the "source" and "destination" file paths. For example, source may be something like: "C:\Users\public\shared mcam2019\", and the destination would be something like: "C:\Users\public\shared mcam2020". I believe there is a "search subfolders" option as well.

I would encourage you to read the Stickied thread at the top of the main Industrial Forum page, that describes how to set the Control Definition Default settings. This makes updating Mastercam versions much easier, since all the settings will match the old version, when your CD Defaults are properly configured. 

Even after you update all the files, you will still need to setup your "machine list" in Mastercam, so the machines will be listed in the drop-down menu.

This is great thanks Colin,

I might be seeing what Terrance is talking about as well. In every past version of Mastercam, once I updated the Machine & Control, and Post files, if I sent those files to someone else they could then put then in a folder, and see them on the 'Manage List' window for adding machine definitions to lists of selections.  

If I use the migration utility to go from 2018 to 2019 or 19-20, this list is populated correctly - but if I then grab these now 'updated' mcam-mmd, mcam-control  and .pst (why can't we change that extension already!!!)  and send them to someone on the updated version, they can't see those files in the 'Manage list' window. 

On 7/14/2017 at 8:56 AM, Frank Caudillo said:

Right, I guess what is happening is the toolpath will have coolant on from the toolpath parameters. I'll then go back in to edit a feedrate at a point with the toolpath editor and without even opening the coolant dialogue box for that point the coolant will be affected. The fix seems to be to open the coolant dialogue for the point I'm editing and then, without making any changes to the coolant (they're all set to "Ignore"), hit the green check and accept the edit. Doing that, I've been able to get clean points without weird coolants. Maybe I'm missing a critical part of the toolpath editor workflow to keep this from happening?

Frank, I'm having this exact issue on one computer out of six, all running the same 2019 build version of mastercam, all running the same post/machine/control def.  I'm sure you got on with your life, but I'm going to try to solve right now and will post back

22 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek™ - Conventus said:

I'm sure it's a test piece.

right good point

On 8/29/2018 at 3:52 PM, ajmer said:

i added collision check and removed extend tool to infinity

its not gouging now but it does a wierd move  

Sample.mcam

Hi Ajmer! 

On 8/31/2018 at 3:37 AM, Sharn said:

Sorry it's taken so long to get back, I got slammed but thank you Ajmer I would never have thought to look at the extend to infinity as I don't really understand it, generally just turn collision control off and sort it through verify and adjusting toolpaths. Being routers more 3+2 than full 5 axis. I cleaned the weird move up, not perfect but much nicer can share that next week if people are interested 

Extend to infinity pretty much what it says it is - take your tool and imagine it is as long as infinity, going back into your machine.  
It is useful if you have a cut angle that you know might run your head into something - you can add a tilt /avoidance strategy. 

Also very useful to control machines that don't have a physical tool (like spraying or blasting)

I think he just wants what Roger mentioned

outputting vector information can be done in the post but is not for the faint of heart; even experienced programmers will find matrix calculations frustrating at first blush in post. 

NEThook would be easy enough to write jlw, how bad you want something?

If you only need to do this once, and having a unit vector (i,j,k) is okay.  You can save the file as a .STEP then open it as a text file. 
 

iThere will be a section for each line, you can search/replace everything else  to just be left with points / vector  (Direction)

ie: 

104=LINE('',#101,#103);
#105=CARTESIAN_POINT('',(0.869525945998740,-1.491090563615069,1.013089119252023));
#106=TRIMMED_CURVE('',#104,(PARAMETER_VALUE(0.0),#101),(PARAMETER_VALUE(1.0),#105),.T.,.PARAMETER.);
#107=CARTESIAN_POINT('',(0.618476426778893,0.380408095902425,0.708966688719660));
#108=CARTESIAN_POINT('',(0.618476426778893,0.380408095902425,0.708966688719660));
#109=DIRECTION('',(0.851776802699722,0.523904837143769,0.0));
#110=VECTOR('',#109,1.0);

I'm worried about the grain & knots on that neck. Looks cool but that thing might MOVE

Corian is great stuff!!

thanks for the accoya suggestion - I didn't know about that and it looks really solid.  We use a lot of mahogany & Sapele - I'm amazed at how well they do outside with little effort.

I just made a sign out of Walnut for... some reason - I saw a great walnut sign that seemed to have withstood the San Diego sun, but time will tell on mine

On 4/15/2018 at 3:49 PM, movillermv said:

Hello I am new to this forum and fairly new to mastercam been working with the software for a couple months now, started off with featue cam and realized mastercam has more options when it comes to decorative things. my question is what tool paths are best for engraving wood to make the lettring or figures really pop in the wood grain I have used a surface contour on some basic 2d line geometry, would a engraving process be the at to go with changing depths and features to make images look more 3d ?

Engraving toolpaths can work, but you can probably achieve that desired look using 2-D pocket & contour, along with an engraving bit to chamfer edges, and use different depths. The nice thing is the things you learn in Mastercam from this are applicable to all sorts of other work

Some tools come and go but the big red toolbox is a fixture in the shop - Happy to have the staff at CNC.

Unless you want to write your own DLL as the interpreter, you're kind of stuck doing Mastercam post development using the MP Language. Fortunately, it is very well documented, and very full featured. There is new MP Documentation available (I believe with 2017), but of course you'll have to request that from your Reseller.

 

The big limitation of MP in many ways is that you only have 1D arrays available, because MP uses simple ordered lists of variables for everything. I know Jeff has done some serious enhancements over the years, but I can't really talk about much of that. There are mechanisms that exist in the language now to allow you to use much more modern programming techniques. Things like passing variables to subroutines either by val, or by ref, and much, much more.

 

There is a whole new Tool Table mechanism, and parameter read options.

 

So if you want to develop Mastercam Post Processors, MP is a very useful language, and very powerful too. For what it does; which is processing NCI data in a "script" like method. This allows for quite complex output, and yet still performs quickly, which is always a concern. 

yeah that's what I meant - I think for almost anyone it would be more effective to pay someone else to develop in MP than to learn more advanced functions unless you plan to be with Mastercam for a long time and forsee needing to change the post quite a bit. 

The big limitations to MP like you mentioned being 1D arrays so matrix math is a pain.  I think the biggest limitation is it forces someone who may already be comfortable  OOP in modern languages to fight against programming instincts. The buffer filestream is a nightmare to explain to someone and so there's a huge barrier to entry which I can only imagine holds back post development at CNC as much as it would at any other company. I'm sure there's far more to it than that

As far as quick script-like programming, Python is lightning quick as an alternative. 

Vector math actually isn't that difficult. I appreciate the help with posts from you guys who always help but I'm a math kinda guy and just wanted to play with the calculations because I'm that weirdo that enjoys that kinda thing. I've noticed patterns in output regardles of tplane XY orientation as long as A(Ax, Ay, Az) and B(Bx, By, Bz) are the same for the created tplanes. It tweaks my curiosity because I was perusing an NCI output today and noticed it had what appeared to be matrix output in it but all 3 axes instead of just the Z axis vector. So, I'm thinking you could use that to orient the XY output for use with G68.2 or G68.4. I've noticed no matter where my XY are oriented output is the same so the X and Y vectors are wasted, imho.

 

I've also determined that trying to get this info from an unlocked 4 axis post is useless. You can easily track that back to pxyzcout0, pxyzcout1, etc and there is definitely no matrix math there as it comes from a simple c$.

 

I don't need to edit a post, I only want to play with one that I can get all the way under the hood on to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

Thanks guys.

 

If I write one, you'll be the first one I send it to for critiquing.

If you're comfortable with vector may and 3x3 matrix rotations, the hardest part of the vector math in 5axis posts is realizing how a matrix is represented and manipulated in MP. 

So I would +1 to what mkd & watcher said - I would only recommend spending time in MP if you're looking for some wham-bam output but if you're thinking long-haul development, in for a lot of headbanging in a proprietary language.

nice!   In the future you might try using the walls as drive and control some roughing using depth-cuts/multi-pass and a side tilt angle of like 87 degrees. not the best but sometimes you want better control on the tilt angle for the inside of a cavity and you gotta watch the material engagement on the rough

Does it convert  and approximate edges as true solid faces or do you get a polygonal faceted solid?  In any case I would be careful with conversions because it's either averaging or you're going to get a mess and you might as well cut from the original STL.   Most of the time the STL is from something you're not trying to hold a tight tolerance to  anyway

Hey guys, working with x8 here and this is my issue. Basically I'm cutting out some lettering and have a couple tight radius' in there. A few .030 and .015. Anyways, I roughed around the contours of the lettering with a .093 ball endmill, but of course its going to leave material where those tight radius' are. So I was wondering if there's anyway I can create a stock model or solid based off of what my .093 ball endmill machined. Because I may just go back and change those radius' so that my current cutter can hit them instead of ordering new cutters. However, I'm afraid that if I start changing my geometry I'm worried that it wont line up the lettering I already have cut out. Cause I also have to go back and radius the top edges of my letters. So everything has to line up correctly. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Have you checked out the rest-mill toolpaths?

if you need to manipulate the STL try out Meshlab - sometimes slicing it is the way to go. 

If what you're doing is what I think, Curve toolpath is not good at projecting the edges of a surface to the same surface. Seems silly I know because 90% of the time you're going to want to be trimming 'around' a surface if you're using this path to trim something. I've brought this up a million times and the path has gotten better but it still comes down to a tolerance of the surface edge vs. the 'loop' it creates around it - I thought this wouldn't happen in Mcam for Solidworks.   

Like Ron said you'll often avoid this while using Lines, but you have to watch sometimes on sharp edges. 

If you really want to use the surface, if you untrim it, then it should work out well - it gives the toolpath some 'meat' to project onto during calculation. 

Been awhile since I've looked at FBM - I liked the geometry/plane creation and if tools are set up well ahead of time it works, but for what you mentioned setting different stock to leave maybe, or knowing to use a tap in a hole of a certain size... that might not get you where you want to be

It likes the facing operation first. If you start with the facing operation, it will use the stock automatically and you don't have to pick boundaries. You can enter a step over for multiple passes if needed, and if you want a separate finish tool, just enter stock to leave and make a new finish operation just chaining the face.

hey nice avatar

Do you have any computer programming background at all? If you're at all proficient in OOP you could probably go a long way with hooks, even just with the Nethook library.. but its  hard to gauge with that kind of thing how much something is going to take the first time you do it.