and that's what I stated at the beginning.... "Generally"

Generally speaking the inspection equipment should be 3x's better that your tolerance.... Check a ±.005, ok, Check a ±.002, should be OK.....anything tighter than that on a CNC machine should not be trusted for inspection purposes. I know people try...some might be somewhat successful but it is ALL TOO EASY to lose control of a process doing that.

I am not familiar with the Mastercam University files at all...

Sight unseen, my best guess is your planes are incorrectly set up.. What kind of machine?

Easy enough, turn your monitor over.. Seriously, where did you get the machine files for the simulation? It sounds like either the machine isn't properly oriented OR you have your planes in your file set up wrong.

Yes...you have to be clear enough so as to create a process that can be audited BUT you need to walk a line that allows you to adapt to situations that might be out of your norm... I have seen companies attempt to kill themselves by documenting everything to the 'nth degree...they always get in trouble and have to rewrite most everything to accommodate some flexibility in their process. For a loose definition.... ISO = Say what you do, Do what you say and have the documentation to prove it.

If you want to pull the tool number...you'll want to save the tool value at the tool change...you can then access later in the OP's and it will update at the next tool change

OK, now you're into this section...I had a feeling you needed something else besides the subout$ psub_call_trans #Translate level calls from toolchange, user if mi1$ <= one, result = mprint(shomeserror) sav_absinc = absinc$ pindex #Mirror or Rotate Coord's if sub_trnstyp$ = zero, mr_rt_actv = three #Mirror if mr_rt_actv, [ if sub_trnstyp$ = zero, [ #The original pattern is not mirrored if sub_chn_no$ <> one, [ absinc$ = zero psub_mirror ] ] else, [ #The original pattern is not rotated, calculate the rotation incremental angle for G68 rt_csav = atan2(sub_m2$, sub_m1$) if sub_sec_no$, [ rt_cinc = prv_rt_csav - rt_csav while rt_cinc > 180, rt_cinc = rt_cinc - 360 while rt_cinc < -180, rt_cinc = rt_cinc + 360 if rot_ccw_pos = one, rt_cinc = -rt_cinc !rt_csav absinc$ = zero psub_rotate ] else, [ !rt_csav ] ] #Set restore flag and sign mr_rt_actv to indicate active mr_rt_rst = one mr_rt_actv = -abs(mr_rt_actv) ] else, #Translate all, Rotate toolplane [ if sub_mny_t$, [ if mi1$ > one, absinc$ = zero if convert_rpd$, pconvert_rpd pbld, n$, [if gcode$, *sgfeed], *sgcode, *sgabsinc, pwcs, pfxout, pfyout, pfzout, pfcout, [if gcode$, *feed], e$ pe_inc_calc ps_inc_calc ] ] absinc$ = sav_absinc #result = nwadrs(strp, main_prg_no$) result = nwadrs(strh, main_prg_no$) #altered to get H output, 02/10/2020, jmp main_prg_no$ = main_prg_no$ + 40000 #alter to push subprograms #'s into the 40000 range, 02/10/2020, jmp #if progno$ = main_prg_no$, result = mprint(sprgnerror) pbld, n$, "M98", *main_prg_no$, e$ result = force(feed) # Force output of feed next time it's called for output (in sub) You'll notice a section near the end dated 2/10/2020 I have to alter the code for my mazak required output .... What are you trying to achieve might be a better way to go at what you need.

It is in the Machine Def >> Coolant tabs.. Load the machine def into the a file >> OPen the "Machine" tab >> Machine Def... General Machine Parameters >> Open that, coolant tab is in there

But 2025 will be out in just a few months

With 3D printing, it really isn't so much about the material, yes, each material comes with it's own costs and issues. Where it shines for us is on specific parts that simply cannot be made via subtractive manufacturing or any kind. It really comes down from what I have seen and learned, to the part design itself. Does it lend itself to additive or subtractive, or even a combination of both. Not every part you'll quote or make is proper for 3D printing, not yet any way. I would say a job shop "could" add it but it would really depend on their customers and what they get or already quote for work or if they want to change and chase a certain kind of work. Will it work for the sake of having the capability, not financially feasible for the most part. A lot of factors come into play when considering parts for 3D printing. Part shape, part size, material, machinability and more...

subout$ That's the command you're looking for...

Yup... still trying to teach this aspect to an old dog...

You missed or skipped over the "who supports it" part of the question... I don't say your suggested way is worse or better....from the users end, when something goes wrong their reseller is where they get their support...doing something in manner you suggest is going to trip up resellers.

and who is going to support that if & when something changes or goes wrong? Your reseller won't...really best to stick with the tried and true method that has been used successfully for many years at this point.. JM2C

Yup I have setup dozens of companies exactly that way...part of what I used to get paid to do

Beyond the fact that your IT dept is composed of idiots? THe best way to work in a system where things are shared is to move the machine defs, control defs, posts, tool libraries on a network drive that ALL can access. You will need to remove ALL local copies of those files or your Mastercam will run home to the shared folder..... All of your Mastercam files, will be accessible if stored on the network... You need full read/write access to "my documents, public documents & the network folder where everything is stored.

But what IS your graphics card

Yes.. Generally I use wireframe for this...depending on what I need to do, I may need to offset a chain to get a path to cut just as I want Blend geometry will usually be open...not a closed bounday....though working between 2 diameters or a boundary and point alter that rule

Create geometry along both edges of the ramp...use those as your 2 chains Make sure you chain them both going the same direction or the result won't be what you want.

No... Someone else will have to help with a sample for you

JP2-3D_FACE_EXAMPLE..mcam Here's another option with a projected single surface path

JP-3D_FACE_EXAMPLE..mcam I only have 2024 but a 1 surface blend will get it...there are likely 5 or 6 other ways I could get it done as well.. I wouldn't opt for a flat mill but a ball instead

There's a reason diamond turing machines cut in the millionths'... Not knowing your application, I certainly won't say it can't be done but I do know in our application, regardless of how good the finish was, it wasn't close enough.

If that is a single solid, the Disassemble function will not work....it is designed for assemblies which are made up of multiple parts. You will have to break it apart manually.