Well, I last looked at this in V9 last december...and I've encountered the same problem in MCX now..weird rectangular nesting. Has anyone else gotten around a nesting problem like this? (see Nesting Picture on my website) Mastercam can't seem to figure out that the best way to use a sheet is to maximize the yield from either the horizontal edge or the vertical edge (ie starting from X low or Y low, preferably my choice). Instead, it always seems to want to maximize yield on a diagonal, forcing changes to the sheet size to nest in until it's close, which takes forever. Ideas?Thanks!

Well, subject really says it all. My updated MCX seems to be interprolating diagonal lines....into short diagonal lines! Any ideas where to look for this one. All I really have to go on is my V9&post which does not have a problem. Yes is it drawn as one line, and no filtering is set. Thanks, Greg (Hopefully this will be the last little problem I have!)

Actually, it must have been the unchecking the allow 360 degrees boxes (or possibly starting/restarting MCX), as I later had to change it to "delta from start point" (or similar).

I think it must be the control definition, as the arcoutput$ is equal to 0 now (just checked)...I've checked a few other areas of the post to another post and I don't see any changes. (this second post is outputing fine, and ironically was the basis of the problem post, back in 5.52) After testing, it seems to be changing the arc center type to "absolute" in the control definition editor( and possibly unchecking the allow 360degree arcs boxes....did that anyways as it matches the post). Thanks everyone

Where can I change this back in the new X post? Thanks, Greg

I think I figured out how to make a new, simple, machine definition that uses the updated post and control definition (created by the post update)....and if it works for one machine they it should work for the other.

I just have gotten to looking at X, but know I'll be better of learning if I'm working on real production. I have 2 working posts originally from 5.52 that I updated to V9 router no problem. I just updated them to Router X and, since they are mill posts, the update wanted to update them as such....no problem (I thought). But, then I started to look at the control and especially the machine definitions, getting completely lost (Where is the simply 3 axis machine!!). Then I looked at the manual (I did have it open, honest!) and saw that the update post should create a machine definition and control definition and add it to appropriate lists. However, because I have a mill post, and Router X, it wasn't there. Simply renaming the extension didn't work, as MC now says I need a sim upgrade to use that machine (presumably because the mill is still in the file itself) Any ideas??? Also, where is the place to leave suggestions and bugs for CNC software.....I'm never going to be a beta tester, but there are some things in 9 and X that make me wish I was! Thanks, Greg

OK, I'm back at it. I never really got to setting things just so, with templates and things....and my operator/programmer (for the simple stuff) just left. So, I'm back at the V9 adjustments again, and liking what I can do more than when last I posted (toolpath translate w. zigzag is a joy). However, trying to take the advice above, I have had a few problems. 1) I can't get the depth cuts to a) default on or default to finish pass. Ditto for retract and feed plane heights. I've also had to set the default drawing level at z-2.0 (I normally set the origin at a point above the table, 2" gives enough room for just about anything)....I think that is the only way to get the cutting depth to default all the way through any material. My only though around this issue #1 is to have, in the "template" file, a toolpath of something, possibly then even deleting the geometry, and then mark/lock the toolpath to never display, post, etc. I can't help but think there is a better way to preset these types of things. Ideas please! Thanks, Greg

Hi Les, Because I posted around the holiday, I'm re-posting in the hope you can explain the above. Thanks, Greg

Les, can you explain the "make part orgin the center insted of a corner {seems to help somehow}"? I don't quite follow you. BTW, I had .020 between parts on center of bit (that should have been OK)....and just tried .001, and that didn't make it work. Thanks, Greg plasticworks.ca

Hi Lee, It is the results screen that seems to be different. Your results seem to be in a dialogue box as part of the nesting dialogue boxes. In Router, it only uses the drawing area to plot out the results. And yes, I noticed the gradient toolbar buttons too. Nice. Greg plasticworks.ca

Hi Lee, I did get your email, and I thank you for you help. However, making 6 of one shape in the vertical and 4 of another in the horizontal is not what I had in mind as a fix. Yes, it saves time if I know before hand that I can fit things a certain way but MC won't do it. ....but MC should! This is a very simple operation! It is one that you can tell easily that there is a more optimum solution. But, othertimes that is more difficult, and I expect a high-end package like MC to not drop a simply nesting exercise. But, Lee's suggestion seems like the best answer until the nesting works properly. I tried nesting the toolpath and a rotated copy (I had to delete the nesting sestion though, the rotated copy was picking up other junk when trying to import), win a min of 10 each. Voila, that did get the 10 yield I knew was there. Les, sorry for not putting this above, but I only have rectangular nesting...and grain would not have helped, as I can't get the 10 out if grain was important (plexiglass, so it isn't). But, to the MC staff, the nesting still needs work, and having a way to force the majority of the parts to nest in one direction would be a welcome addition....I have a $100 nesting program that does that.....although oddly enough it also choked on my 10 x 13 piece. BTW, Lee, are you using anything beyond the standard install for nesting. The screenshot you sent was unlike any I've seen on my version, but I don't know if that is because it mine is Router vs your Mill or something else. Anyways, have a good weekend everyone! Greg Facer, plasticworks.ca

Hi Lee, I'm going to download and install the march service pack, as I see you have it and I haven't installed it. Thanks for the help, Greg, plasticworks.ca

From what Lee said, and what I tryed, it seems my link doesn't work. However, the FTP site link at the top of this page does, then it is in the MC9 folder as nest.mc9. Going back to read the FTP instructions.... Greg Facer, plasticworks.ca

Hi Guys, Back again, unfortunately. This time, I'm trying to nest a 10" x 13" toolpath (plus 1/8" bit, and has some holes/cut outs) to get 10 pieces from a 35" x 48" sheet size. I know this works, I can (and will have to it seems) do the layout by hand, but thought it would be a good quick test of MC9 rectangular nesting. BTW the proper way to do it, if 48 is X and 35 ix Y is to have 2 rows of 10Y13X 3 each and 1 row of 13Y10X of 4. MC9 will not do that, insisting on only cutting 9 pieces! But, if I set the sheets to "add additional sheets as needed", the next sheet, only partly filled, starts with the piece rotated 90 degrees, which is what I want for 1 row of the first sheet! For the obvious questions: Yes, I had 90 degs in the "rotate by" box. I also tried nesting the geometry. (and yes, I had room) I'll try to get the file up on FTP: ftp://www.ppcadcam.com/Mastercam_forum/MC9_files/nest.mc9 Thanks for any ideas. Greg Facer Plasticworks.ca