For a solid, Under File >> Track Changes >> Choose the options Click Tracking in the top right In the window, Right Click >> Add...select your file to track... When you open the Mastercam file it should check for changes

I haven't experienced the problem in quite some time now, so I'll guess it's fixed. Working with CNC and Karlo they discovered a skew that was happening deep in the math....we found that once you created a plane and it was off, there was no fixing it...you literally had to start fresh and start importing all of your toolpaths..

Select all toolpaths, right click >> Renumber tools

Is anyone using the Force Optimization module? I am curious, once you have your machining parameters set, do the resultant changes actually work at the machine? Do you find yourself having to turn things back down? Does it work not only on the screen but in reality at the machine? It is not a cheap module and I want to get some real world thoughts.

Honestly, I couldn't even guess at this point...I cannot say there was, I cannot say there wasn't...all I can say is I don't remember one of that type causing me any problems.

In my opinion, it's not a fix....the fix is to get your control def squared away I appreciate what Colin is offering but at the end of the day it simply covers for the programmers bad habits and is a crutch. I prefer to teach my 'grammers to work in a properly thought out and constructed work process flow. JM2C YMMV

LIkely MP.net which has been on the burner for many years...perhaps it is finally going to migrate into the rest of the product and not just Mill/Turn... Dunno who your reseller is, not interested in finding out just is sounds like the typical sales pitch...if you have a custom purchased post, the post writer will support it... I find it difficult to believe that with ALL of the MP posts out there, that they will just deprecate everything that was previous...that would be a fool's errand. I would still learn it as if nothing else is learned, the person learning with learn logic flow...

@Johnward Holmeson @AHarrison1 You guys that quoted that long post should edit your replies...you have a Spam link included...that's a spam post that needs to be removed. There's a mini-link after "broom design"

It's a simple Surface Finish Project toolpath... There is a dummy contour path that is used to project the desire toolpath...I created and extended surfaces to get the tool on./off the part HTH I only have 2024 installed, that is what I used sample-1-jp.mcam

The ONLY performace I am referring to is graphics...and GeForce will fall down eventually. In my mind, any trainer or reseller who does not know the level of work a customer is doing, chasing and/or apt to get, is doing them a disservice by recomenneding a GeForce card. I've been on the support side. If you know someone is doing mostly 2D, some 3D, heck, even some light 5 axis, a GeForce card can and does work. When you start programming with hundreds and hundreds of Operations, and hundreds of solid bodies....you will wish you had invested in a proper CAD card. JM2C YMMV

Good luck to you...I don't recall ever saying ANYTHING about toolpath creation, ever. and there you have it...keep stacking stuff on, you're working to what you see as complex...I can only guess, that your level isn't the same as others.

This site offers a Multiaxis tutorial..up under Downloads.. Though I'm not sure any training material deals with those kinds of issues...but should cover usage

Usually straight forward using a point tool path...create a plane, add a point on that plane, use a safe point distance and create just the point path between the 2 moves

Try creating an intermediate move to a B90 anlge say...if you're moving 180° there are 2 solitions...as the post isn't tied to the simulation it can get upset...

It lies in "how" they utilize the OpenGL instruction set, it also is the hardware as well, there are more processing pipelines available on the Quadro then there are on the Geforce line Just becasue they both have it, doesn't mean they both can do the same things.... Yes. That should be the GeForce will eventually fail https://www.gpumag.com/nvidia-quadro-vs-geforce/ Processing power is another area where Quadro clearly wins.

and this is where the GeForce cards will eventually come up short...the OpenGL instruction set for the Quadro cards is tuned specifically for the Quadro cards and CAD/CAD/CAE and heavy duty graphics rendering. I won't argue that a GeForce can't get many users by, it can Once you start working with complex models, complete simulation build outs, full setup builds, complex 3D & 4th & 5th axis cuts, this is where a Quadro will eventually fail. I did Mastercam support for several years, we always recommended Quadro cards The level of card depending the work the user was doing. Why? Becasue from the support side, you want to help the customer eliminate any chance of issues that you can. Customers can and do have plenty of other problems and questions. Not having to deal with graphic issues is good for all involved. https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/t/tessellation.htm

If you have the point cloud data, nothing is needed.. as a txt or csv file it ill import directly on File >> Open and select the file A quick 3 point file attached to illustrate... File >> Open >> Select the csv, txt option, select the file...you'll get the 3 points...use that format point cloud.csv

Quadro cards are simply designed and run software that is made specifically for CAD/CAM. It is really all in how it utilizes OpenGL. GeForce cards can suit some users.

It's a balance kind of thing....big enough to cut efficiently but small enough to generate good motion.

View Sheets

I don't use it any longer but if memory serves me, there is an option in the free Verisurf utilities that can do that.. I usually just use Analyze Dynamic to see if the surface is 0° against the plane

The answer is, don't create a large number of stock models... As noted above, once you create it, save it as a mesh and delete the stock model....doing it in this method you'll not have any, except perhaps the final one one,,, Though I will note, the more complex a stock model gets, it will slow....don't over tighten those stock model tolerances....doing that will eventually hurt performance, even in just 1 stock model... One thing I do is I will create a stock model....and I will keep adding to it incrementally as I go along until that position is finished....I then create a pmesh...and continue in the next position using the pmesh as stock and again incrementally adding OPs to the current stock model until again I get to the end of the position...save a pesh, next position, new stock model using the previous pmesh as the stock.. In doing it this way, I have 4 positions on a tombstone and only 4 stock stock models

When in need, draw the tool path you want....I still do it on occasion

Not any real help I know but we've been running update 3 since it was released and none of us has experienced any issue as you're seeing.

It's not about getting it done, I too have "gotten it done" it's the tool set...the basic 2D CAD to this very day is not much beyond where Autocad was was back in the 90's. That just is...