Scratch that, I just found the Application Guide. Just the same, any advise would be appreciated.

Can any one help me get started on the Pick Off/Pull/Cutoff function for lathe? I have worked with a number of mill posts and a little lathe work too but I have never tried to get the Pickoff together. Can any one help me enable it and list the parameters involved? I can't seem to find it in the MP Documentation. Thanks.

That was something I thought as well. Hole is round with in .002"

It is a Matsuura with the Yasnac control

Thank you for all the replies. I didn't anticipate getting so much feed back. I am going to push the IJK thing the next time this problem comes up. It makes sense that the machine may be making minor errors in calculating the center point. This could be why we sometimes get holes that are out of round. The machinist here are good guys. They just have a way they have always done things and that's the way they want to do them. They about crapped the pants when I showed them dynamic machining. They ALL had something negative to say about it. Every thing from the code is to long (they do have a point with that, DNC sucks) to it's too hard on the machine. The fact that it cut machining time by more than 30% was of no concern to them (they live by the say "getting paid by the hour"). In the end it isn't up to me, it's up to the boss. He tends to side with the guys that have been here 20+ years. Non the less I don't want to see the shop falling behind because it is stuck in its old ways. Thanks again.

Yeah, I don't have any back bone.

Theepres, are you having this problem as well? Do you always change it to an even number? Gcode, I preffer IJK, but I am not the one running the machines and majority vote has been keep the R values. Cathedral Yeah, I changed it to a 3 place decimal by request of the machinist on the floor. I quote "using a 4 place decimal point in your R value will cause these machines to make holes out of round". Edit, side note, I have never tested the out of round problem.

Sorry it took so long to get back on here. I did figure it out though. It is for a yasnac control. Here is what I came up with. ptap$ # Canned Tap Cycle "G93",e$ pitch = 1/n_tap_thds$ # Tap pitch (inches per thread) *sgdrill, g98_g99, *x$, *y$, *dpoint, *refht$, *pitch,e$ pcanceldc$ # Cancel canned drill cycle if drillcyc$ = 3, n$, "G94", e$ "G80", e$ The reason I don't switch to the master is kind of sad. The team doesn't like the formatting on the MPMaster. I have been working on changing the formatting to "look" just like the current post they are used to using. #nobackbone

I just spent a few hours learning something about my machines I never knew. I posted out some code, no problems. I intended for it to cut a bore that was 7.285 in Dia. Ran the code fine but it cut the bore 7.260. checked my numbers, then checked my numbers again. Nothing was wrong with Mastercam. Then I checked the code. We use R values, not IJK. Did the math on my R value. That was good. So everything seemed fine. We tried a few things but nothing would work aside from comp-ing the tool out .025". We had some down time to mess with it and we figured it out. I just don't know why. My boss came in and said why not try changing the geometry from 7.285 to 7.284. I gave him a dumb look but hey, he is the boss. I tried it and sure enough. It cut a 7.284 Dia bore. He said bores sometimes have to be an even number. . . I doubt that. I think what is going on is my start points for my R value are not posting correctly or something. Any one feel like reading over the code and seeing if they see what I am missing? Code that fails to cut a 7.285 (cuts it to 7.260) Dia bore using Contour with a .75 end mill X-.225 Y-2.6675 G41 D34 Y-3.0425 G3 X0. Y-3.2675 R.225 Y3.2675 R3.268 Y-3.2675 R3.268 G1 X.01 G3 X.2343 Y-3.0418 R.225 G1 G40 X.2332 Y-2.6668 Code that cuts a 7.284 Dia bore using Contour with a .75 endmill X-.225 Y-2.667 G41 D34 Y-3.042 G3 X0. Y-3.267 R.225 Y3.267 R3.267 Y-3.267 R3.267 G1 X.01 G3 X.2343 Y-3.0413 R.225 G1 G40 X.2332 Y-2.6663

You know come to think of it, it may have something to do with the fact you are using a G54 in your programs and not the G53. . . nah, It's never that easy.

No backplotter will handle that code unless you get it from the machine manufacturer. This is proprietary NC code, kind of looks like Siemens but defiantly not your standard code . Their are so many things wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin. G53 vs G54, M3 vs M4 (that one might be on you), The old code calls out a G44 in a G40 line? Yeah, lots to fix. I think you are going to be down for a bit. Are you sure you can't pull the old post from the old hard drive? P.S. Slap your reseller.

pdrill$ #Canned Drill Cycle pdrlcommonb pcan1, pbld, n$, *sgdrlref, *sgdrill, pdrlxy, pfzout, pcout, pindexdrl, prdrlout, [if dwell$, *dwell$], *feed, strcantext, e$ pcom_movea Looking at the post you have a call out for dwell$. Here it says if dwell then output dwell. Find dwell in the start of the .pst file. It will look something like this. fmt P 11 dwell$ #Dwell This is the format of dwell. Change the P to a K. As for the drill depth, this one is a little different. It will require logic to tell the post to only output a K if the drill cycle is equal to G82. I may have to wait for Colin or someone on this one. I have some free time, so I will see if I can put something together.

If you have two tools set with the same work plane (or even the same tool with different operations) but different tool plane mastercam will post out a G55 when the T-Plane changes. Select all your tool paths that use the same plane then right click and use the feature "Edit Common Parameters." Select planes then select your working plane. Doing this will force all your tool paths onto the same plane.

Awesome, thanks for the quick reply.

I once saw a HSM/Dynamic Machining spread sheet that had a number of users contributing to it. Now I can't find it on here. If any one knows where it is let me know please.

Agreed. Vargus and Carmex both have some pretty good software too.

Thanks guys, you have given me some good insight. The current flow is pretty bad, probably the worst I have ever seen. Quotes go to the owner, he quotes it with out the use of a CAM system (he actually does okay, but when he is off it is usually pretty bad) then sends it back. Once we get the job they come to me and usually this is the first time I get to see what we are doing. I order tools, program it and make setup information. The way it stands all setup sheets are hard copy only, all NC programs go to a mass inbox folder with the customer as a prefix, part number, then the op number as the file name. REV. is not documented on the NC file. They are ISO 9001 cert. How they keep it I really don't know. The programs are stored on the computer under a user's name then then the MCX with the same ID as the NC file, again with no REV. After the job hits the floor machinist look for tools (tool crib is more like the Ace hardware store with bins full of nuts, bolts, drills, ext.) and then load the program and go. We do have a QC, that's a plus. Aside from that it is basically no real pattern. I am sure we can all see some very big flaws, the problem I am faced with is more that people are extremely resistance to change. Any ideas on that one?

I recently pick up a new position as a programmer for several machine and a handful of machinist. I want to know if any one has recommendations for how to stay organized in a job shop. Specifically how to organize files and repeat jobs. I am open to any ideas.

Thanks 5th. Correct me if I am wrong but without defining target points, even with the right software we can't have a complete inspection. I am going to pass your response onto our quality guy. We do have a CMM with programmability but have never been trained on its use (kind of a touchy subject in the shop) but it sounds like we will need to figure it out for this part.

it should be noted that they say to interpret drawing per ASME Y 14.1 and this was not legal till ASME Y 14.5 but... No need to be that picky, right?

I'm confused by that statement. This is assuming I am working with a cylinder that has two flat edges. Mine does not because of the curvature one side of the hole is defined using splines. Splines as you know do not have a center point like an arc and there for you can not define two center points to construct a line on to use to defining its projection. You can't define a true position using a datum as the hole you are defining. (if I was working with a cylinder you could use the outside to define the inside but that would be concentricity, not true position.) You can have the two at 90 deg but you will need one as the primary that sits perpendicular to the cylinder to fully define the location, unless you were using another cylindrical object to define on of the said planes.

I said that. He said A CMM. I said you need a level plane to establish a primary. He said something like "well sounds like you may need to get a better CMM." This guy really urks me! I told him I would find some proof.

Can some one verify this? An engineer called out a true position of a set of holes using a curved surface as the primary datum. When constructing a reference point for your true position you MUST use a plane (as defined by GD&T to be flat or level surface) as your primary surface. I tried explaining this to him and he says he has never heard of that (with attitude) and that I should be able to make the part the way the print is. He wants proof that this is true but I can't seem to find with in any reliable source. A website link or something would be nice.

I agree with Tim, sometimes size doesn't matter.