38 minutes ago, Jake L said:

This naming convention would work, except I couldn't figure out how to get "#num subprograms since tool change"

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 

4 hours ago, Zoffen said:

Is high end additive stuff only for exotic oem or is there any way that a small jobshop could add this to their capabilities realistically?

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...

2 hours ago, Zoffen said:

Its really amazing what one spindle can churn out with the right support and encouragement!

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. 

13 minutes ago, byte said:

Rather than use a shared copy on the network, it is more performant to use a local copy and have a batch script copy the files over from the network, this also mitigates the risk of corruption.

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

6 minutes ago, Jake L said:

+1 to Mr. Paris

Our "Shared Mastercam 20xx" folder is on our network so we can all use the same MD/CD, posts, and tool/toolpath libraries. Had a meeting with our reseller a couple months ago and they said our setup is how they recommend to setup on a network.

Yup

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

10 hours ago, rcoope said:

Does anyone have any insight here? 

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

2 minutes ago, ThickChips said:

Can the geometry be wire frame?

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

4 minutes ago, ThickChips said:

I'm trying a surface blend, but keep getting error "warning - at least two chains are required."/

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.

Just now, ThickChips said:

I assume no way to open without upgrading? 

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

43 minutes ago, Wes09 said:

it would probably end up as me proving that mastercam can achieve the level of optical precision on a few test parts (or failing misserably!). Think of the machine I am running like its a 5 axis mill. table is x,y,c while the head is z,b. All of the tooling is diamond impregnated. I think spheres and plano could be done in mastercam. Sphere and plano are only one axis in motion (Z) and C spinning at whatever #rpm. Asphere and freeforms are where things seem like they will get tricky.

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. 

Optics, ugh....

It is such a specialized process.

I've milled surfaces, it wasn't for the lack of trying but they could never approach our diamond turning machines.

Think Red Dot type optics....

If they have their own proprietary abilities,  make them prove it. If they can,  as far as I'm concerned it would be a no brainer to use their stuff.

1 minute ago, Kyle F said:

I'll take rigidity over a pretty GUI any day.

Everyday and twice on Sundays  

2 things come immediately to mind

Are you sure the settings your saving are pointing to the correct directory for 2024?

Are you using Microsoft One Drive? I just had to turn it off for one user because he was using it and it was resetting his config file every time he changed it.

It's a single turret, spindle spindle it looks like....

If no one is up to tweaking a generic post in, then yeah, one of the 3rd party offerings....In-House Solutions, Postability or looking at your location, if Cimquest is your reseller, they can do it as well

Have you asked your reseller or reached to CNC Software?

I see what you are pointing out...still useless for my use...doesn't understand G10 lines, doesn't understand how Mazak subprograms are called, doesn't understand the offset variables(#70001+), trouble with macros still becasue of the #999 limitation....

NCPlot has just worked for all that stuff....

Though both are going to get a lot less use with Vericut coming online after the start of the New Year...

I do thank you for pointing out that it does have "some" ability finally.