I don't know if it were nessasary, but when rigid tapping with my Fadal control, I would disable the over-ride pots....Maybe M48/M49

I've been experiencing some strange coolnat stuff with MR1. It seems that if I "use tools step/peck/coolant" it overrides the actual paramaters within the operation. i.e coolant-off, yet outputs M8.

This is a X-post that does this.

I'm a little P.O'd Mr1 has so many little quirks.

The error occurs in backplot. MC asks if you want to "mark invailid arc endpoint" and regardless of wether the box is checked or not, it pukes 115 points all over my screen.

For giggles I tried posting the file. No warnings or errors.

I sent it to the machine and ran the file through the graphics. The machine gave an error.

.0001 is the smallest resolution in inches, but .001mm (.00004) is the smallest resolution in metric.

If you are using an endmill, I'm surprised and impressed you can hold that tolerence (.0005) currently. .0002 isn;t much to play with, but have you tried using a plain milling cutter i.e a slitting saw, one pass.

Your not telling us the material, but if that dont work, I'd say grind it.

By playing with different setting, I was able to get the path pretty nice looking. Now when I use high-feed to speed-up the air cuts, I get an "illegal arc" warning. wtf.

On the bright-side, I learned something new today. My 2-year old just stopped into the shop for a visit. He sat at my computer and by dragging desktop icons, he was able to open them in Internet Explorer. I never knew you could do that.

I'm not using a containment boundry. The blue surface represents the stock size. In the event no boundry is selected, HST uses that for its outermost limits.

Using X2 Mr1.

I'm trying to use Core-roughing with trochoidal motion. The toolpath is placing loops where it is unnessasary (the outermost section) (bottom of picture).

What am I doing wrong?

Lots of ways. WCS is one.

Surface/Finish/parallel.....I believe "Use depth limits" defaults to Center rather than tip.

Caused another gouge in my jaws.

This thread is bringing back some bad memories of using a pseudo mechanical type writer to punch tapes. No backspace and White-out did nothing to fill the holes.

I'm trying to create a rendering of an assembly for a brochure using X2. Two items are clear polycarbonate, one item is titanium.

Is it possible to shade the two clear items using shade/translucent and the other item with a different shade setting?

I agree with Ocean Lacky. Loose the drill. Speeds/feeds also seem a little too conservative, If it's a HSS 3-flute rougher, designed for aluminum, I'd start somewhere around 3300rpm (650sfm)and .01 FPT, adjusted for the centerline difference, comes out around 39ipm.

That was going to be my sugestion. "Advanced/only between surfaces"

I've got a 2005 Fadal 4020, (side-mount toolchanger and Fanuc 18i control) and a 2006 Haas VF2ss (with Renishaw probe/tool-setter).

Fadal is a box-way machine verses Haas's guide-ways. Guide-ways are faster and more accurate. Box-ways offer better vibration dampening. It's very interesting to hear identical cuts from different machines. If your doing 4th axis stuff, I wouldn't think vibration dampening is a big concern. Last month my Fadal made almost 2000 pounds of steel chips using a Mits AJX high-feed cutter. I don't recommend using a Fadal that way, but I could and did. The Haas couldn't using identical speeds/feeds/d.o.c.

The Haas has a 12000 rpm direct drive spindle verses Fadals 10000 rpm high/low belt drive. Fadal has a little more low-rpm torque, but direct drive is quieter and less to go wrong.

Haas has faster tool-changer, rapids and is overall a quicker machine. The Renishaw package was only like $6k, verses Fadal's $10k.

Fadal is offering a new FX 4020 model, but they seem to having some "executive issues" these days. Overall, I think Haas has their act better together. I'd lean you more towards Haas.

Brad,

I was thinking about you the other day. How is Oksana? It's been about a year hasn't it?

What is it you are trying to output to 5 places?

I think you will need to change the format for that variable.

Look for this in your post

fs2 13 0.5 0.5 #Decimal, absolute, 5 place

fmt X 13 xabs #X position output

Changed like this, X will output 5 places.

I know from experience, installing an older version of MC after installing a newer version can cause a similar looking problem.

Regardless of the tolerance settings, I think there will always be a rounding error which must be managed. A quick fix may be to "break arcs at quadrants". There should be a setting in the post to do that and I bet that will take care of it.

WTF...6 years ago I was riding my 145hp Vmax like a man possessed. My mantra was "If you don't dump at least once per year, your probably not going fast enough". And I did my share.

Since then, I got married and have 2 boys. I'm looking at the videos posted above and thinking, "That's so irresponsible".

How did this happen?

To join the consensus, your output is a result of Mi1. There is a check-box in the Miscellaneous Values page (automatically set to post values). You could set the operation defaults to have that checked.

I also got mine and they are very nice. So that's two.

I received notice on 12/21, but I was too busy during the Christmas frenzy to visit the emastercam board.

I will be happy to post pictures when my new CAD-Survey sweatshirt arrives.

Thanks John.

Backplot-info tab.

Is there a way to show the min/max coordinates relitive to the current/programmed wcs? It looks like it uses the top-wcs, but the part was programmed with the wcs and toolplane/construction-plane bottom.

Set "can-peck" in the post to "no" to output longhand.