My company is considering buying a small to mid-sized 5-axis mill for generally light duty mill & drill operations. This would be used as a production machine to simultaneous 5-axis mill and drill polycarbonate lenses for flight and ground helmet visors. We are looking at the Haas UMC-750 as one possibility. Anyone have any recommendations for other machines in that general size and price range? Budget would be around $250K max. Thanks in advance for any replies!

Yes, but sometimes you still need to use the 'Run as Administrator' command. I ran into this same issue with Windows 8.1 trying to install a program. I had full admin rights but it would not install until I clicked 'Run as Administrator'. Because Microsoft... Love the sig, Jeff.

I use the Import function quite a bit too. Thanks, g!

Also the lead / lag settings may accomplish what you want to do. But as Reko stated, extending the surfaces is usually the easiest fix. If you could post your file here I'm sure someone will help you get there.

Thanks again, Ernie. You guys rock!

Thanks, JP. I didn't see the 'STL' tab on the Xform dropdown menu in X9 like it used to be in X8. I just opened the stl file separately, moved it, then saved it with the geometry in the new location. But that seems like a long way to go when the 'STL' function used to be right there on the xform menu. I guess I was just wondering why it was changed.

Just went to use the Xform STL function in X9 for the first time and found it wasn't there on the Xform menu as it was in X8. I can open X8 and translate it from there, but that seems a huge PITA. Has that function been eliminated, or just moved to a different menu?

Yep...that sounds about right. As mentioned, the stuff is so gummy that anything more than a single flute cutter is going to load up almost immediately and probably snap. Glad you got it running good now!

Good idea there too. Unfortunately the job is finished so I had to move on to the next project. I have some notes jotted down in case I get some time to mess with it again. We haven't had many orders recently for this particular part, but I do want to have the issue resolved for next time. Thanks again all for your input.

Yes, that is true when merging or copying ops. I have seen issues in the past when doing that. But just to be clear, in this case I didn't merge or copy any ops. I opened an older X8 file in X9 and saved it as a *.mcx-9. I changed the cutter diameter offset in the X9 file and regenerated and reposted. After that the lead-in was boogered up to where the tool would have gouged into the part. I had done this procedure before all the way back to X3 but never had an issue until now. Maybe saving it in the X9 format messed it up since the ops were created in X8, but if that is what happened I can say for sure that it has never happened to me before. I am also going to try rewriting the ops from scratch which I am 99.9% sure will eliminate the problem.

Update: OK so I went back and increased the lead-in and lead-out values. Upon closer inspection it is only the lead-in that is acting weird. Changing the values has no effect. It doesn't ignore it as I had originally thought, but it is putting an extra little lateral move in there that should not be there, which is what is causing the tool to plunge into the part. Sorry I can't post it here because it is difficult to accurately describe what is happening. I will try to kick the file to my reseller today and they can forward it to the QC folks. (I am assuming our NDA with our reseller extends to CNC Software but I need to double check that.) Thanks all for the input. The part is finished and passed inspection, so from that perspective we are good to go. However there is still no explanation as to why it acted that way to begin with. Hopefully the QC folks can poke around in the guts of the file a bit and find a solution.

No I didn't only because I wanted to verify they were the same in the X8 file, which they were. I posted the X8 file and ran the part yesterday because I needed to get the job done. I will try changing the values today and repost the toolpath again to see if they stick.

Update: I still have X8 installed on this workstation so I went back and opened the *.mcx-8 file in X8. I changed the diameter offset to the new value, regenerated the toolpath, and reposted with the X8 definition files and post. The lead-in / lead-out moves are as they should be. I will use this program for now, but would still like to know why it got boogered up in X9. I'm guessing we are probably closer to the newest Mastercam release, so I doubt if X9 issues will be as pressing to try to fix. However, if something can be learned from this going forward it may help.

Thanks, Ron. I can send it to the tech support guys at my reseller to see what they can do first, then they can kick it up the chain if necessary. This just surprised the heck out of me because we have been running this same job since X3 and I have always followed the exact same procedure when updating the files to a newer version. The only variable that ever changes is the tool diameter because we use reground cutters for this particular application. This is the first time I have had an issue like this come up.

Multiaxis milling is tough to learn on the fly. As Rstewart suggested, a mill level 3 training class from your reseller is probably the best way to go. If that is not feasible, Daniel and the guys at In-House can hook you up with some on-line training resources. If you must do trial and error, verification software is a good investment if you don't already have it. Better to crash the simulated machine than the real one!! Good luck.

I wanted to avoid reselecting the geometry because it was kind of a pain the first time since some of it is a bit tricky with lots of branch points. All I did was change the diameter offset, regen, and repost. I guess I could try reselecting the geometry, but I am wondering what that would have to do with lead-in / lead-out parameters. I know it's tough to give help without seeing the file, but it's proprietary stuff so I can't post it here.

Hey all, I just encountered a disturbing issue with a curve 5 axis toolpath in X9. I had a model of a previously made part with some toolpaths in X8 that I wanted to migrate to X9. So I opened the X8 file in X9 and saved it as a *.mcx-9. So far so good. I needed to make a change to the cutter diameter offset to accommodate a slightly smaller diameter cutter, so I did that and regenerated and reposted the toolpath in X9. For some strange reason, the posted file in X9 completely ignored the lead-in / lead-out parameters, causing the tool to plunge into the part instead of approaching on the lead-in vector. Has anyone seen anything like this before? I need to get this job done, so I am just going to go back to the original *.mcx-8 file in X8 and make the change there and repost to see if the error repeats. Any suggestions as to how or why this happened? Thanks.

Depends on the application, as stated here by many. Most programmers have their 'go-to' toolpaths that they use most often. I always try to keep it as simple as possible. For example, I would not use a Multiaxis > Multisurf toolpath when a Surface Finish > Parallel would work just as well. Mastercam offers multiple ways to do things, so it often comes down to personal preference and experience.

Yes, if you can't get formal classroom training, a good book with a tutorial is the next best thing. There are many good training resources here on the In-House web site if you choose to go in that direction. Not sure if they can go all the way back to X5, but you can ask. I would send a PM to Daniel or one of the other mods here to find out what X5 training materials may still be available.

That will ONLY come with experience. Multiaxis machining is quite complex and takes time to learn. I would highly recommend taking a multiaxis training session from your Mastercam reseller to learn the basics. Like Ron said above, you need to keep digging into the menus and sub-menus to find all of the different settings. Most of us who have been doing this for a number of years have found that learning is often accomplished by trial and error. Take the time to change one setting at a time, regenerate the toolpath, and see what that setting does. Sooner or later you will get the result you are looking for, but it takes time. Good luck!

Good morning all, I've posted about a similar issue in X8 and I am now seeing it in X9. It concerns a multiaxis curve toolpath with depth cuts. I want the tool to retract to the retract plane in between depth cuts to clear the chips. Normally when we do not check the 'keep tool down' box the retract move should happen. However I have noticed in X8 and now in X9 that it seems to ignore whether the box is checked or not and just keeps the tool down. It is a closed contour, which I think is part of the issue. I have tried adjusting the lead in / lead out to get it to retract but it still won't cooperate. I have an open contour in the same area of the part, and that multiaxis curve toolpath does retract between depth cuts as it should. I'm going to try adding an actual lead-in curve to see if the tool will retract as a work-around. Anyone else have an issue with this? Is it a known bug? Thanks.

Welcome to the forum, Randy! I've used the lock feature in the manner described here by Matthew H. There are a few rare occasions where I have edited say a swarf toolpath to remove a few unwanted vector lines, then locked the toolpath. Months or years later when I revisited it and saw the locked toolpath, I knew I had done some manual tweaking via the toolpath editor. So for me it was a great visual cue that jogged my memory. Having said that... Could the lock feature be improved? Sure, if the folks at CNC Software decided to look at it and make a few tweaks I wouldn't object. But is it an absolute necessity? No, not really IMO. As mentioned here it could go away altogether if the decision was made to scrap it, or to use CNC's finite resources to focus on other areas of improvement. So I guess what I'm saying is I would be OK either way.

I just tried both Mastercam verify (the one in the ops manager) and the machine sim verify (the one on the toolbar). As with X8, I have no dynamic rotate function in the Mastercam verify, but I do have it in the machine sim one. (Click and hold left mouse button.) Is this just a mouse setting? This has always bugged me!

OK got it! Yes, klutzy is a good description. It does work so that's cool. Thanks.

When I started 5-axis programming back around 2004, I struggled understanding the whole WCS concept too. Hardmill had a very good tutorial posted here back then that really helped me. I also use swarf, 5-axis curve, drill, and multi-surf mill toolpaths quite a bit and mostly use top/top/top. When I do create a plane from geometry for a specific reason, I always set the origin of that plane to the Top WCS and I've never had an issue. I'm also of the mindset that even if I don't fully understand all the math going on behind the scenes, I'm still ok as long as the software, post, and machine produces an acceptable part without crashing!