This is the method I have always used as well. I've ever had any major issues, and have found this to be a huge time saver. I have seen a few weird minor issues like coolant settings being changed in the imported toolpaths, but other than that no worries.

Yeah that's probably all you can do if you don't have verification software. Find the trouble spots in either backplot or machine sim, then look at the NC code in the corresponding area of the program. If it's going to do something weird you may get lucky and see it in the code, but that is a risky way to go about it! Depending on the dollar value of the parts you run, Vericut could pay for itself many times over in a short period of time.

The problem with backplot and verify is that they run the nci file for the simulation. So the answer is you can't fully trust either one. The BEST way to find out what your toolpath will to is to run Vericut or some other verification software that actually runs the NC code in the simulation. Then you know exactly what you should expect to see when you run the NC program on the machine.

We do 'sneaker networking' with a jump drive to our Haas too. I try to keep a minimal number of programs on the jump drive, and I always back it up to my shared mcamx* folder on my hard drive, and also to a network folder. Any time we make edits at the control, I will always copy the program back to the jump drive, then update the hard drive and network copies. Yeah, it's a PITA, but jump drives can fail. Keeping too much data on them without having it backed up is just too much of a risk IMO. You may get away with it for a while, but you also may get burned. The few extra minutes needed to back up your files are well worth it.

I think it depends on how much wear you have in your trunion, and what the tolerance requirement is on the part. Some of those trunion tables get pretty sloppy when there is a lot of wear, so I would be careful. You could try removing the brake commands if you are willing to scrap a part and see how it affects the finished dimensions. If everything is still in tolerance you will probably be ok. Having said that, the little amount of time you gain may not be worth it. Those axis brakes are there for a reason, so not using them may cause more wear on the machine.

Thanks again for the input, guys. Helpful as always! It looks as though this particular job may be getting booted over to our Tool Room, so I may not need to worry about it after all. I will pass the info from here over to our Lead Toolmaker since it looks like this will probably become his headache.

Yeah I'm not sure if I can run coolant on this stuff, although I would like to. I thought the material would absorb the coolant, which for this application would definitely not be good. My understanding is that copper electrodes of some kind are to be nested into these grooves, and that current will pass through them. So if we were to have residual coolant weeping out from the piece of phenolic, this would most likely be an issue. The good news is that this will be a 1-off piece rather than a production type of job, so time will be less critical than accuracy. I'm also wondering if a slitting saw may be better than an end mill for this particular application, but I would also not have a clue to speed and feed for that either. Any more suggestions? Thanks.

Well it's time to revive this thread! I will have a job upcoming to cut some square grooves into a piece of phenolic for our Electrical Engineering folks. The grooves are .020" wide x .100 deep. I have some .020 x .125 end mills, but I have no clue where to start with speed, feed, depth-of-cut. I'm not sure which type it is, but it is pretty dense and the edges show white bands running through it which leads me to believe it is the cloth based stuff with glass reinforcement. Any suggestions on speed/feed/d.o.c. to start?

Hmmmmm...ok. The 'Convert-to-5-Axis' toolpath also has some control parameters you may be overlooking. I have used that quite a bit and found that if everything isn't set just right it gets a bit weird. Sometimes parameters in the original toolpath will conflict with those in the 'Convert-to-5-Axis' toolpath and give unwanted results. In the 'Convert-to-5-Axis' parameters go to 'Parameters' >'Additional Settings'>'Planes' If your WCS is not set to 'TOP', try changing that then regen the toolpath and see if that changes the output. (That's the most common problem I have experienced.) edit: Also, be aware that the older versions of 'Convert-to-5-Axis' (pre X9) were always a bit hinky to begin with. From around X8 or X9 forward they have gotten a bit better. If you are using X6 you may encounter some of the older issues that were improved upon in later versions.

If you are using a surface as your tool axis control parameter, check the normality of that surface. That will flip everything upside down if the normality arrow points away from the tool. Same thing if you are using vector lines as your tool axis control geometry. The arrows should point toward the tool instead of away from it when you select the vector lines.

Might be a good time to have your post updated if it is a custom post. (In case you haven't heard, Prism Engineering is now Fisher / Unitech.) Chris J. is still there doing Mastercam tech support, and in fact I was just talking to him yesterday. He will dial that post right in for you if that's what you need. I had a weird issue with a multiaxis curve toolpath on our Haas VF5 a while back that was similar to what you are describing here. The tool would get to an arc near the top center of the part then just start cutting off on a tangent right through the part. The tangential move never showed on the backplot or in machine sim, or in the code. I thought since the arc in question was near the intersection of the rotary and tilt axes that it was a singularity issue caused by that intersection point. After a bit of trial and error I ended up simply breaking the arc into 2 pieces and the problem went away. Just another one of those weird things we come across in this line of work.

Welcome BrankoPNP. You will find that there are many ways to do something so don't hesitate to ask. You could also use Multiaxis Curve and simply enter a lag /lead angle or a side tilt angle in the Tool Axis Control parameters if you want the tool to tilt away from the surface. I use that all the time and it's usually clean and simple. Morph works well too, as do several other approaches. You will learn much by trial and error, so don't be afraid to experiment with any toolpath in CAD space. Good luck!

That is weird. I use the 'closed loop overlap' at times but I don't see that solving this particular problem.

OK I've had a chat with the tech support guys at my reseller. Turns out it was something simple I overlooked. I didn't have the 'Tool axis crosses tilt axis' box checked. Apparently it was checked by default in the older versions which is why I probably just overlooked it. I checked the box, regenerated, and it's all good. Sometimes it's the little things that are right there under our nose that we don't see. I'm glad we got this resolved, but it does raise a separate issue. This particular toolpath seemed to take a much longer time to process in MC2017 than it did in X9 with the same feedrates and stepover values. When I click on the green checkmark from the parameters page, the program almost seems to lock up. If not for the blinking light showing activity on my hard drive, I wouldn't know it was doing anything. Then after the parameters page finally disappears, the toolpath still shows dirty and I need to regen it. That also seems to take about 3x longer than it did in X9. Anyone else seeing that?

Not used. I stuck to all of the default settings just to see what would happen. I have the job running now with the X9 posted code, but I would still like to know why 2017 crapped out to begin with. I sent a zip2go file to my reseller to see what they can come up with. Nobody usually works there on Saturday, so I will have to wait until Monday before they even look at it.

I actually have a few floppy disks from around version 3 as well. Some have old *.ge3 flies on them according to the labels. But nothing to open them with.

OK here's what I did... I opened the file in X9 and did the radial and convert to 5 axis toolpaths from scratch. Backplot, verify, and post all good. Opened that X9 file in MC2017. Backplot, verify, and post all good there too. So why didn't the toolpaths work from scratch in 2017, but the X9 ones do? Parameters all the same, but one works and the other does not. Lastly, I closed 2017, reopened it, reopened the file, regenerated the toolpaths, and it is still all good. I could swear the parameters are all the same, but I still have that one that is boogered up. (I saved that one under a different file name.) So now I'm completely stumped.

OK thanks G. I'll give that a try.

All, I have used the 'Convert to 5 Axis' toolpath quite a bit in previous versions. In MC2017 it is not working correctly for me. I can't post my file here, but I can describe it simply. It is a dome shaped surface. Normally I do a 2d radial surface toolpath, then use the 'Convert to 5 Axis' to add a fixed tilt value to the Z axis for a little extra clearance for the toolholder. This method has always worked for me, and it is clean and simple. Doing that same procedure in MC2017, it seems to be ignoring the tilt value and just stays vertical. Backplot and Verify both show the tool staying vertical, and the posted code confirms all B0 values. Is this a known issue, or am I just missing something in the parameters?

The last disk I have is X3. All web downloads since then. Although I guess it is possible our IT department gets the disks from the reseller and they just file them away somewhere. (Note to self...Find out if any IT weenies are walking around wearin' MY Mastercam swag! )

OK just installed the update. I never experienced the tool manager issue either, but I understand some people had fits with it. Since I was not one of those, I will chalk it up to clean living!

Sometimes it can be just as simple as splitting the surface, then approaching the side that works well with the fixed angle normally, then approaching the side it was plowing into from the opposite end of the surface. (Not sure if that's clear.) Or doing half with the tool fixed at 45 degrees and the other half with it fixed at -45. Without seeing your machine I am just guessing here. As with any 5-axis program there are many ways to come at it. I use multisurf with fixed angle quite a bit and it's a nice way of doing things once you learn the little tricks.

Thanks, g. Installing now...

Again, thanks for all of the input. It has been very helpful. As I stated originally we aren't looking for super-precision. A light duty simultaneous 5-axis mill for production is what I am looking for. Mostly mill & drill polycarbonate lenses and maybe occasionally mill & drill thin composites. I have passed the forum input up the chain, so we'll see what they decide.

Thanks for all of the input. I have passed the recommendations along to the person in charge of the project, so we'll see what happens.