OK...I downloaded and installed the DriverX file. Now I can run V9 again, but wondering why I should even think about it... My company is converting me over to program and run our new Deckel without Mastercam, so all I've learned in V10 will probably be quickly forgotten. I'm not real happy with this development, but I guess I must simply bite the bullet and make the best of it...

Welcome Jacob! As John said, there is a post update utility that is built into X. A more detailed explanation is given in Section 3 of your 'Mastercam Transition Guide' which should have come in the package with your Mastercam X materials. If you did not receive the printed version of this guide with your materials, there is a PDF copy of it in your C:/mcx/documentation folder. Read and follow the steps carefully and you should have no problems. Also as John said, make sure you make a backup copy of your original posts so you can always refer back to them if problems arise. Good luck and enjoy version X!

quote: there was'nt even an lwn file for my stl in the directory Are there any .lwn files in your C:/mcamx/data folder at all? I just had a look in mine and they are all there. This is a strange circumstance indeed. I had a similar problem and tried the fix that Don LePore recommended in the other thread and it worked just fine. Have you tried the new xform > stl feature in X? This should allow you to orient your V9 imported stl file the way you want it. I've been using this new feature quite a bit lately and I really like it. HTH

When I try to open V9 now I get the 'hasp not found' message. I assumed the new hasp was only programmed to operate Version X. *note to self...NEVER assume anything!* Thanks for the driver info, Mike. I never realized I could still run V9, but as I said, the more I run X the more I am liking it.

quote: I loaded the latest X patch today and will try it out after the Holidays. Tony, You may encounter a minor problem with the new update patch as described here in gcode's recent post. I'm sure CNC will rectify it quickly next week, but be aware that there is a reported glitch in the latest update. I also understand your frustration with switching over 100% to X. I find it slow going at times also and sometimes I wish I could go back to V9 when I need something done quickly. I don't have a choice, however, because I had to 'cut the cord' to V9 when I swapped my sim. Now I'm flying solo with X and making the best of it. I know it's been said before, but the more I use X the more I like it and the faster I'm getting. It's just a learning curve like anything else. Hang in there and keep plugging away with X and the speed and confidence you had with V9 will come.

I wasn't going to get involved in this one, but here's my $0.02 anyway: quote: The posted gcode is good, the tool comments are one postion out of sync. AHHHH...the dreaded 'off-by-one' error rears its ugly head! When I took my first basic programming class I learned that the 'off-by-one' scenario was the most common programming error in any code that involves counting loops, etc. It doesn't surprise me to see a common programming error show up here, since as someone said, we're all human and errors are part of life. Like gcode said concerning this particular error, if the posted code is good and I can make a good part, the tool comment sequencing thing is really just a minor annoyance. I'm sure the person who wrote that particular block of code is already sufficiently embarrassed, so I see no reason to pile on over something minor that slipped through under the radar. Yes, there are many frustrations involved here, and yes, things like this shouldn't happen, but I'm sure lessons are learned through mistakes like these and the developers will not be very likely to repeat them. Even with all the problems, major or minor, I think Mastercam is still the best game in town.

Welcome to the forum oldirish! I haven't heard this one until now. I use mask on arc and always get the right quantity of points. Do you know an Engineering student by the name of Tom Szelag at CU Boulder? He's a forum member here too and I'll bet he would be willing to take a shot at helping you with this problem. Sometimes 2 heads really are better than 1!

beej, I recently completed Mastercam X training at my reseller and we did some leftover and pencil toolpaths in class. I don't have the model handy but the wireframe of the model can be found at http://www.emastercam.com/files/x/mill.html and the tutorial can be found in the Mastercam X Mill Training Tutorials book in the 'Tutorial #15' section. The model is a teapot shaped object and the tutorial covers creation of the surfaces and machining the object using rough pocket, finish scallop, leftover, and pencil toolpaths. We did this example in class and I thought the leftover and pencil toolpaths were really slick. The instructor did say that you may need to play with the settings to get EXACTLY what you are looking for, but it CAN be achieved. Sorry I can't be of more help, but if you download that model you can experiment with it yourself. Better yet, someone may be able to upload the finished model with all the toolpaths to the ftp site so you can check out the settings and try to duplicate the toolpaths on a project of your own. edit: Sorry...I forgot to add that you can get the Mastercam X Mill Training Tutorials book here if you don't already have it. [ 11-23-2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Jim at Gentex ]

Yes, I've noticed this too. I just change the 'stock to leave' setting on the check surface to .0005 and the message doesn't appear. Like beej said, the difference wouldn't even be noticed after polishing. Hey, Smit...Where's your kewl Jayhawks siggy? It's that time of year again!

oops...Sorry Bill... I forgot to tell you you also need to go to the parameter settings for that toolpath and find the surface rough settings page. There is a check box labeled 'use approximate starting point' which needs to be checked or else Mastercam will ignore the point you chose. Good luck.

Bill, Go to your ops manager and find the operation you need then click the + sign to drop down the menu for that op. Now select the 'geometry' tab from this menu. One of the parameters in this menu should be 'approximate starting point'. Select that, then select a point on your model where you want your toolpath to begin, then select OK. Regen the path, post the file, and you should be all set.

Thanks Andreas! You da man!

Another thing to remember with flowline toolpaths is that they often won't work if your tolerances are set too tight. I agree w/ Mike. Project Blend all but replaces flowline in version X. I don't even waste my time tinkering w/ flowline anymore.

Howdy neighbors! Welcome to the forum J. Keilman. You can create a user defined view and cplane / tplane oriented the way you like. *Create or choose a flat surface, 2 lines, or 3 points that define the desired new plane. *Click the dropdown menu on the 'Set Plane' icon *Select 'Set planes by geometry' *Select the desired flat surface, lines, or points then click OK *A 'New View' dialogue box will now appear and ask you to name the new view. *There is also a 'Set as WCS' check box in the New View dialogue box which will set the WCS to the new view you just defined. You can either check the box, or use 'Set Plane'> 'Set planes to a named view' and select the new view you named. You should be all set.

Jeff, We had many issues like this in V8 and V9 in the past b/c my employer has several different software packages used for design, but only Mastercam for machining. Our problems were similar when reading files into MC from other packages. Most of the problems disappeared when I requested .step files from everyone who needed to send files to me for machining. The .step format seems to me to deliver the best conversion between software packages with the fewest problems. I could be mistaken, but this is what has worked for me.

quote: But if you go from Start/Exit, to the Files page, you can also set a "default" mill machine definition. It is this machine that X reverts to when you press File, New. Thanks, Rich! That was driving me nuts too!

I've always wanted 'xform > STL' and there it is!! WOOHOO!! Jim teh liking X more every day!

I agree w/ John. It's very easy to pick the endpoint or midpoint of an arc, especially if you don't zoom in on every hole. It's also possible to have the auto-cursor 'slip off' the point just as you click it resulting in a sketched point rather than a fixed one. I always set my auto cursor to 'center' just to avoid that particular mistake.

No, the user preference config files all have a .config extension and are found in the C:mcamxconfig folder. You are looking at machine configuration files which are different. HTH

Thad is right on the money. Unless you want all your nc files to be 'machine_group_1.nc' you need to change the default name anyway. It's much easier if the geometry file name is already there and you just add to it. My naming convention in v9 was always simple because the default nc file name was always'C:Mcam9MillNCMy_Part.nc' which directly corresponded to 'My_Part.MC9' Instead of retyping the whole name, I would simply click my cursor in the name box and add an underscore and a description like 'My_Part_Top.nc' or 'My_Part_Drill_Holes.nc' or 'My_Part_Left_Side.nc'. Less typing = more productivity. Thanks for the reply Ray. That's exactly what I was looking for!

Good points, Thad. My understanding is that you can define the desired program number in the control definition and it should remain there, but don't quote me on that. The nc file name is another matter. We've been told that X is striving to save us time by streamlining some of tasks we do over and over. Typing a new file name for every nc file I post is going in the opposite direction of that goal! So far, that's the only feature I really liked in 9 that is absent in X. Somebody?... Anybody?... Puleeeeeeze write a little script that will do this and make many users happy?

Thanks Thad... I was afraid that's what the answer would be! OK all you C-hook and VB Script gurus out there... Who's gonna be first to write a script or c-hook to name the nc file the same as the model? I will be eternally grateful...

OK but do I have to do that for EVERY nc file, or can the model name be set as the default name for the nc file like in version 9?

It's probably right in front of me but I'm not seeing it. I want the posted nc file name to match the name of the model so that if I write a toolpath on 'MY_MODEL.MCX' and post it, I would like the nc file to be named 'MY_MODEL.NC'. It currently names it 'machine_group_1.nc' but I want to change that to match the name of the .mcx file. How is this accomplished in X? Thanks.

Sean, I'm glad I could help. I've had that chess set file for quite a while but never got around to making it. Good luck with it. John, I also have a nephew in the Navy currently stationed at Norfolk. He's an Electronics Tech and he's been trying to get into BUDS. The docs say there's a minor problem in his stomach that could cause problems at depth, so he would need surgery to fix it before he could start SEAL training. He really wants into the SEAL program but this minor medical glitch may hold him back. I'm glad to see we have such courageous young men who are willing to serve our country.