Interesting. I think it has something to do with what you learned on. Esprit was the first CAM software I used, and I certainly prefer it over MC, but MC does what I need.

This opens as a standalone "help" file. Is that correct? Like so?

Funny question, when I started programming, it was with Esprit, and the guy who taught me liked those teardrop shaped entry/exits. I can't remember how you do it now, (its been a few years since I've touched Esprit) but you did something like 66%/33%/33% on your entry/exit page. So really it's just a habit I got into, and nothing more than that.

I will play with it more tomorrow. I couldn't get the optirest to behave correctly with a transform, otherwise I'd have used it. Perhaps over Thanksgiving break I'll take my pc home and play with it some more when I'm not under the gun.

Makes sense. And thanks again for taking a look!!

Gotcha. I also noticed you created a new machine group. In the past, I had just been creating a new toolpath parent group called OP2, or whatever op it was. Any reason you used a new machine group? I know a lot of things are just personal preference, but I thought maybe there's a reason. I suppose with your way, it would be easier to put the parts on 2 different machines.

Ok, I think that makes sense. I do like the view sheets in this case. I've never actually used them. My issue was using the same part model, but changing the orientation of the parts, which you seem to have fixed by only reusing 1, then copying. My original plan was to put toolpath on 1 part, then use transforms for the second part, but I couldn't seem to get the transforms to work how I wanted. I noticed you have 2 stock models. 1 as a single part, and 1 as both parts. You included both, just to show both options, but would normally only have one or the other, correct? Thanks for taking a look at it. For sure. I appreciate the feedback.

I didn't want to create a new thread with the same part. For OP2 I want to position the parts roughly as they are in level 210. How would you go about laying that out? A seperate file? Would you create solids of the first operation finish state, and create an all new setup, or continue working off of the original stock model? The second op transition is where things always get a little confusing for me. I put an updated file in dropbox, because it's now too big to upload. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jgnhy6o8nz6z7e/333a072.mcam?dl=0

Awesome, Thanks again for the help. I didn't expect a reply on a Friday night, haha.

I'm not able to change the start point. I right clicked the chain, and clicked start point, then it gives me fwd, or back choices. Both of them are ineffective because it's just a closed edge. Do I need to make that wireframe in order to change the startpoint? And one additional ?...finishing the top face, I used an area mill, staying off the wall of the boss, followed by a contour of the boss. Is there a better way? I usually try to avoid area mill, as I don't care for the entry/exit arcs (not enough control, and unnecessary code for our older machines), and I don't care for the aesthetics of dynamic paths as finishing. Maybe I'm just being too damn picky though!!

Thanks Ron, fwiw it's I always define my holders, i'm just throwing toolpaths on this part at the moment. I still need to define cutting tool p/n's, speeds and feeds, etc. Tried your advice, and it worked. That seems to work differently than I expected. I was using .846 to try to "force" the toolpath to start lower. Perhaps I'm thinking about it incorrectly. Also, thanks for the Finish OD suggestion!

I know it's not exactly necessary on this part, but I was playing around with optirough/rest, because I haven't used it much. On my toolpath, it wants to do a pass about 1/8 inch below the stock, before dropping down to the full depth cut. It seems like it'd be more efficient to start at the bottom and work up, so I'm guessing I have something set wrong. Anyone know where I'm wrong? 333A072.mcam

By operation comments, you're referring to the comment on the Tool tab within the toolpath operation, correct? I always label those, Usually with a quick description, and the characteristic number from the print. Last part I made had about 250 operations, broken down into about 6 groups. It was a bit of a mess. I'm trying not to get into that mess again. Thanks for your suggestion. This thread gave me a few different methods to try. I'll have to see what suits me the best.

So you have multiple files for a part sometimes? When I started learning mastercam, it felt like everyone strongly suggested programming everything in one file. One issue I had last time I did a part in separate files, was, I shared a number rid tools between the set-ups, and when I modified stickout lengths, etc, it was a bit of a pain making sure everything matched between setups. But that may just be issues with my own personal organization.

How do you guys organize your toolpaths, operations (set-ups)? I find that things get really clumsy, and hard to go back and modify, when I start getting lots of toolpaths in a part. Right now, I usually Create a toolpath group for each setup, then break down a toolpath sub-group in each. Last part I programmed I did a roughing TP Group, a finishing TP Group, and a Drilling/tapping TP Group. That ended up getting messy because roughing may have had a few drills in it, drilling may have had a few milling ops in it, etc. I'd be curious to see how others do it. Another issue I have is when running verify. Maybe I'm working on Setup #2, and I go back to make a change in Setup #1. Now I have to reselect fixtures, stock, etc. Is there a way to tie setup #1 parameters (stock, fixtures, etc) to setup #1, and vice versa, etc? I find that difficulty navigating is losing a lot of time for me, and I'd like to get faster!