Me too, although I'm not loving the smaller icons. I also miss being able to rotate the part during verify in the pre machine-sim days.

Should I install the hotfix first, or can I just install Update 2 as is?

I've cut quite a bit of foam and plastic, even polystyrene (i.e., Styrofoam). My experience has been fewer flutes and LESS spindle speed often seems to work better. I've had good success with a 1/8" diameter 2 flute 'up-spiral' end mill running @ 8500 RPM and around 20 IPM

Yes, it does seem that way. However, I used this same technique in earlier versions up to and including X6 and it has always worked. (We skipped from X6 to X8, so I'm not sure if this was an issue with X7.) This is the first time I have seen this kind of odd behavior from a copied toolpath. For now I will just re-do ops 2,3,&4 from scratch to get the job done, but it would be nice to be able to use the copy / paste feature without worrying about parameters randomly changing.

OK this is the first issue I've had with X8 and it's driving me crazy! Create a multiaxis curve toolpath to cut a slot in a part. Set all parameters as I want them to be (Tool, Speed / Feed, Coolant, Depth Cuts, Entry / Exit, etc...). Regen and backplot the operation, and all is as it should be. The same feature appears on the part in 3 other locations, so I copy and paste the original operation, then select the new geometry at the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th slot locations. Regen and backplot the 3 new operations, but now the tool stays down between passes in the 3 copied operations as if the 'Keep Tool Down' box is checked, but it is not checked in the original toolpath parameters or the copied parameters. (I didn't change anything on the parameters page, just copied and pasted the operation as is and selected the new geometry.) I've used this same procedure many, many times but this is the first time I've seen the tool retract between passes as it should on the original toolpath, but stay down on the copied ones. I'm sure my chains are all good, and all going in the same direction from the same start point. Has anyone else had this happen or know how to correct it? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the tip! I've been meaning to take a look at HSM express anyway, so the editor is a bonus!

Yes, the vector lines should all point toward the spindle. However, Allan's point is that it causes a problem if any of the vector lines are absolutely vertical. The post needs any angular value other than zero to be able to make the correct calculation. I have encountered this exact same situation and Allan's solution definitely works.

The learning curve is a bit steep, but if you are motivated to become proficient at it, and you can get enough 'seat time', you should be ok. Good luck!!

Is the curve one continuous entity? Sometimes if there are separate entities that have endpoints with small gaps between them the tool will act weird.

Yes, it's a combination of both IMO. Whenever I make a part like this I always try to use 2D paths where I can because they are much easier and quicker. However when you have complex geometry there's almost always a few tough spots to reach, so you do end up using full 5 axis movement more often than not.

Yes, that should work! I sent a file back via email with the part rotated, but this approach looks better. Machining parts like this is ALWAYS a learning experience!

Yes, I came to the same conclusion. Looks like about 25 or 30 degrees rotation looking from the right plane would be needed. This creates a few issues in other areas on the backside, but I think that's the only way to go. Also, holding this in a vise might be tricky too on that little bitty Haas rotary table. If you are just learning 5 axis programming, this part is about an 8.5 on a difficulty scale of 1 to 10.

OK now I can see what you mean. Yeah, you may need to use the multiaxis port toolpath if you have that option. Let me look at the model a little further and maybe I can help get you started.

Yes it sounds like a great idea. I suppose regular double-back tape might work too if you put it on the relatively flat surfaces, but I never tried it. Even any kind of mold release will work too, but as you say, if it can help hold the part in place that's a good thing. Again, if the part has natural holding features like holes or slots the urethane filler works really well. When you mix the urethane it has the consistency of latex paint, so it flows really well into all of the little nooks. Once it sets up it's pretty durable.

Glad to help. If you have further questions just ask.

Sorry I can't look at your part as I'm still running X6. As I said, the urethane does stick to the aluminum. It will break into chunks for the most part, but it still sticks, especially in tight places. That's why I use a thin layer of car wax or model maker's 'black wax' to help release the part. Thanks, Ron for the bondo tip. The nice part about the urethane is that it goes in as a liquid so it fills in all the little pockets and gaps. I have also used a dovetail or t-slot cutter to make an undercut pass around the inside of the pocket if the part doesn't have too many natural features to lock it in. In your case, your part has that large hole through it so that should lock in pretty good.

One more question: Is this a one-off part, or will you be making multiple parts? That can help determine your work-holding method. Parts like these are difficult to hold, so that is the first major hurdle you must get over before you need to worry about toolpaths and cutting tools. If it's a one-off you probably won't want to spend the time and money to make an elaborate holding fixture without killing your profit margin. If it is a 'production' part that you will make multiple times, it's much easier to justify spending time and money up front to produce hard tooling. I've done many one-offs like this using this method: Start with a solid billet that is 1.5" to 2" larger all around than the finished part. Holding it in a vise, pick a corner of the billet for your zero point, machine one side of the part geometry, either top or bottom, making a pocket that captures the whole part and leaves 5 of the 6 outer surfaces of the billet intact. Fill the pocket with a urethane casting material like this: http://bccproducts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/flyer-BC8007-BC8007-21.pdf Machine the top surface of the hardened casting material so it is level with the top of the billet. You now have 50% of your finished part captured within the billet. Now you can flip the billet over in the vise (top to bottom), re-establish your zero point from the corner of the billet, and machine the second side with the first side captured in the urethane. Once you get to final depth on the second side, cut away the remaining billet material on a bandsaw, and pop off or chip away the urethane slug. I have used this method many times but there are a few cautions: The urethane material will stick to the aluminum to the point where it is difficult to remove. I use a thin coating of car wax on the finished surfaces before pouring in the urethane. Remember, the 'second' side of the operation is only held inside the billet by the urethane slug, so reducing speed and feed is necessary to avoid shaking the part loose before all machining is finished. edit: Back to tools and toolpaths... It looks like you can do quite a bit of this with 2D surfacing toolpaths, but since you are doing it on a 5-axis you can try miltiaxis-multisurf. I would say most of it can be done with a standard ball end mill. You can use a lollipop cutter for that opening, but it can probably be done with a regular ball mill as long as there are no negative surfaces or undercuts. I can't see the whole model, only the picture. Good Luck!

What is the material? Are you making the part from a solid billet of material, or is it a casting, molded part, etc...? One of the nice features of Mastercam is that there are a number of different toolpaths that can all accomplish the same result. So it often comes down to personal preference of the programmer.

Well I'm glad you know for sure it's a post issue. It's also good to know you can still get the job done using the older software and post. I don't know your financial situation, but it sounds like investing in a newer post would be something to think about. The software has advanced by leaps and bounds since V9, so you may well end up saving money in the longrun by spending some to upgrade now.

Welcome to the forum! You can set XYZ travel limits in the swarf parameters, but it sounds like your issue is in your post. Other than that, you can try reducing the distance parameter in the Cut Pattern > Wall Following method menu. You can also look in the Tool Axis Control menu, and check the 'Minimize Corners' box. btw...multiaxis curve often works well instead of swarf, and it gives you more flexibility to control tool movement.

Aaahh yes...I see. Thanks again, Tim. I'm trying to do two jobs at once this afternoon and not doing very well on either one! I've been working exclusively with a Heidenhain control for quite a few years, so this Haas control is all new for me. Once I get the post dialed in for correct circle milling I should be good to go. Once again the eMC forum comes through!

OK well I followed the format Tim gave me and it works. I still can't understand why the help menu gives the syntax : G03 X? Y? I? J? but it doesn't work. Anyway I'm a little less confused now, and at least I can mill a circle! I added my G42 line for cutter comp and everything seems to be working as it should. I will need to look into my post later to get it to output the correct syntax, then I should be good to go. Thanks again all for your help.

OK thanks all. I'm at the point now where I'm not even using Mastercam. I just want to get the thing to mill a circle first so I can see what the correct syntax looks like! I see Tim's explanation and I think I get it now. Man...it's just been that kind of day.

OK I've found that I can't even mill a simple circle without cutter comp! I am entering: G00 X-5.8 Y0 (initial position) Z-0.1 (1st depth cut) G01 Y1. F5. (linear move to top of circle) G90 G3 X-5.8 Y1. I0 J-1. (mill circle) Y0 (linear move back to center) I get error: "Invalid I, J, or K in G02 or G03" Are you guys saying the G01 linear move needs to be on the same line as the G03?

Thanks much for the input all. I'm totally new to this control so your info is very helpful. I have a different job running at the moment, but I will get back to the Haas shortly. I will post an update when I get back to it. Thanks again.