Rickster, did you happen to use "turbo" mode in verify? Using "Turbo" doesn't give you a realistic stl file. If you happen to look at the stl file (xform/stl) you'll see that it doesn't look like it did in verify. If you're going to save the stl in verify, then you should use "simulate tool" with the "fast forward".

I haven't run a test yet but I think that if you switch your Clearance Plane setting to "incremental that should solve the problem.

Slick, I've only had this happen to me once and after hours of trying to duplicate the problem I haven't come up with the right steps to reproduce the bug. I've only seen it happen one other time on another persons system and they weren't able to reproduce it either. If anyone can come up with the steps to reproduce the problem, I'll write it up. Without being able to reproduce it, the programmers won't have any direction to follow.

This has happened to me also but I was unable to re-produce it. This was with beta X4 and I had hoped it was fixed. If anyone knows the steps that caused this and can reproduce it, please let me know. If we can't reproduce it, its not going to get fixed. Zoober if you still have the corupt file send it to me. I'll send it to the programmer to see if he can find anything out.

The easy way to get around your problem is to use Surface/Rough/Pocket and use the "facing" option on the Rough Parameters page. Then use the "Floor Extension" option.

quote: Software to know that I spend about 10X more time redrawing Holder.mcx for each individual tool Hmm.....if you're spending this much time on toolholders somethings not right. I believe I have the toolholder libraries in either a DXF or mc9. I'm not sure if the position of the holder is correct so you may need to move it but you won't have to redraw anything.

code: If you add a tool to your current file from the LIB. and then make a change, the only way I know to get it back into the LIB is "save to lib" and this creates a duplicate There has been a lot of work to the "Tools" section of Mastercam. Durring the re-write, a lot of these issues should be resolved (I understand the fustration). There are some big things coming that I think will be a "bit hit" (if everything goes according to the plan) . I can't go into details, just that the tool libraries are getting some attention and are being worked on.

quote: Just wondering if or when it (tool holders) will be available in the 3D toolpaths ie. The answer is yes, the other 3D toolpaths will support Tool Holders. The bad news is that I think its going to get pushed back. I'm not sure where it stands but its on the "to do" list. Once the toolpaths are updated to the "tree structure" then we'll have the tool holder defination and the CLPT and SFM parameters. quote: Great to finally see that the tool holder definition is now available in all 2D toolpaths This barely got in for X4, there was a lot of work done at the end of the release to try to get this out to you folks.

What you have to do is run a Horizontal toolpath after the Area Clearance toolpath. That will leave you with the correct amount of stock.

quote: if it were to capture each veiw in verify after each tool Once we get an "in-process" stock model, then we'll be able to grab that image and add it to setup sheet. Until then we'll manually have to take a screen shot. Keep in mind that you can add the "setup sheet image capture" icon to the toolbar (setting/custimize/screen) and take a image capture at any time I'll see about putting up an "image overide.doc" file on the web so it can be downloaded. It shows the naming scheme for each of the images.

If Horizontal isn't seeing the flats there are a few things that you can look at. 1. Check your Z heights - If you limit the heigh of the toolpath and the flat surface doesn't fall within that setting - no toolpath 2. Make sure you're using the correct plane 3. Check to see if there is a "Cad" file selected - If you were using a rest rough operation and copy it over to a Horizontal the stl file will be treated as a "drive" surface and may not see the flats.

quote: Mark what about this has it been looked at? It was brought to the programmers attention but hasn't been worked on yet. I was mistaken on the Z height setting. If you have .200 stock on the part (with a .100 clearance setting) and you limit you're Z height lower than the top of the part, the toolpath won't see the .200 stock that is about the Z height setting and could rapid through some material. Mastercam should never go through the surface model, which was what was happening to this part.

quote: it was logged as cnc00053697. I don't think that this is going to be validated as a bug. I believe the problem has to do with two settings. The main problem has to do with the depth limits. With the depth limits set lower than the top of the part, Mastercam isn't seeing above the top Z hieght setting. So the retract isn't going high enough to clear the part. If the retracts are set to "Full vertical retract" then there is no gouge. The "Min vertical retracts" can be used but then the "use z depth limits" needs to be set to the top of the part (2.602). One other thing to watch out for is the 'Output feed move" is un-checked. This can cause you problems if your machine "dog legs".

quote: the min and max stepover on the cut parameters page don't update when you change the percentage unless you click in either of the boxes This is fixed in X4.

I think I have some mcx files of some MillStar tools if your interested.

quote: 3) Also not sure about high feed for high speed. I have a feeling it might not work so well, but worth a try to find out Works fine. I haven't had any trouble with it on my end.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're trying to do. If you need the last cut to be a .250 depth you have three options. 1. Turn off the "add cuts", so all of your z passes are .250 deep 2. Try adjusting the "max profile stepover" - giving a bigger value might give the last cut the full .250 depth 3. Set the "max Zpeth" to .250 from the bottom and run another opertion to finish the bottom.

In X3 there are 4 default formula's - one for different material hardness. Rockwell 50 - 60 = Stepdown 5% of cutter diameter Rockwell 40 - 50 = Stepdown 7% of cutter diameter Rockwell 30 - 40 =Stepdown 10% of cutterdiameter Aluminum = stepdown 20% of cutter diameter I believe the stepover is set to 25% of cutter diameter. These formula's can be modified with an XML editor. So any setting can be entered in. It looks like the rockwell 50-60 is using a 10% of cutter diameter for the stepdown. I'll log that as a bug.

Keep in mind that if the Horizontal toolpath gives you trouble you can use the "Surface/rough/Pocket and use the "Facing" option.

I'm not sure what mode you're using in verify but if you're going to save the stl file don't use "Turbo Mode". Use "Solid Tool" and use the fast forward button, you'll get a much better quaility STL file.

There is a new setting in X3 that should help out a little. It won't help on the first time through but any regens shouldn't allow any pop-up messages. Configuration/Screen/Report toolpath error messages and set to "Log file only".

There is a setting in the Config file. Go to the toolapth section and "un-check" the "Automatically calculate HST defaults". Once that is set, you'll get a "recalculate values" button on the tool tab to have the defaults calcualted. Remember that you'll probably want to recalculate values when either switching tool sizes or doing a new toolpath.

With smoothing turned off, the profile tolerance (finish pass) and the offset tolerance (rough passes) have no effect on the toolpath.

quote: "clearance on the holder bottom" Sorry about that, this is a X3 setting.

You need to set the "holder clearance" to a greater setting than you "stock to leave". Make sure that the "clearance on the holder bottom" is on.