This is what I ended up doing, I'm just not sure why it wouldn't let me do it the way I've done it so many times. Yes, all of the operations referenced in the stock model are clean. Everything looked good in verify, as I ended up using verify to generate an STL. .001 initial shape tolerance, .005 Path tolerance, .001 tool shape tolerance. Why am I using these numbers in particular? No idea. But they're the same tolerances I've used for a long long time. I found that too big was causing issues when using them for Opti-Rest toolpaths.

I am trying to generate a stock model, so I can create a mesh, or stl for my next operation, but for some reason I cannot get a stock model to generate. For initial stock shape I am choosing the Pmesh of the model for Op 3's stock. Then I am choosing all of the toolpath in Op 3, and I get this response.

I keep getting this error message when choosing geometry for a 5x deburr toolpath. Anyone seen this before? Once I get it, I have to shutdown before I can pick any more geometry.

I am, but maybe not properly? I'll check that video out. Thank you!

Do any of you guys have suggestions for cleaning up, or "trimming the fat" from optirest toolpaths? I can't share the file I'm working on, but it seems to make lots of unnecessary cuts where it's taking very little material, if any. At this stage I'm really just trying to get material out, and not too concerned about getting terribly close to shape. For reference, I'm using a 2" indexable tool from Ingersoll with a .062" corner rad. I have my cutting parameters set to 60" stepover, .350" step up and down. I had read that setting stepup and stepdown the same will look for only the flats, but it doesn't seem to be doing that on my part. It still seems to be finding angled walls and trying to generate them.

Is this something I should submit to QC?

I did notice this in the event log. No idea whagt C:/Jenkins is. It's certainly nothing on my PC.

I've tried saving to the path I normally save to on the server, and also tried saving to the desktop. A coworker said he's been having the same problem since we updated to 2023.

Trying to save my file, and I get "error writing database to disk" wth?? Disk I'm saving it to is connected, and not full.

Thank you! I'll play around with this tomorrow

A coworker of mine who has been using mastercam for quite a long time says he does this, and almost never drives toolpaths off of solid. Only wire and surfaces. But wouldn't this leave you with lots and lots of surfaces? Are they more or less "bulky" than solids, when it comes to resources and file size? I've got quite a bit of Optirough toolpaths on this part, and it seems like using surfaces would be much more cumbersome. But maybe I'm just not doing it right Do you usually output the entire part as surfaces? or only what you need?

I have a fairly complex file, with close to 600 toolpaths. The customer has made a number of changes, with a handful of changes to the model. I'd like to wipe out the old models, and replace with the new model. Is there an efficient method of doing this? Or will I need to actually go in and replace driving geometry one toolpath at a time?

It is plugged in, and I'm guessing this is the power setting you're referring to? it was at 5% minimum. I changed it to 100%. Got 3.3minutes. I'll try it again in the morning when the PC is fresh. The laptop IS plugged in, by the way.

Interesting, I was expecting better. I see guys in the 2:00 - 2:30 range, with slightly slower processors than mine. Is it the laptop aspect that is bogging mine down?

I should be getting better times with this though, right? I honestly don't care about the Benchmark times, per se. But I do want to make sure I'm getting the most I can out of a PC that cost this much.

Its the HP UEFI/Bios. It's under BIOS Setup > Built in Device Options > Graphics > Discrete

Mine doesn't have a Cuda option. No other apps open that show up in task manager, aside from background processes. I opened the BIOS, and set the graphics to discrete. That should do it right? Device manager only shows the A5500 GPU.

It reached about 10% for a split second. Most of the time there was no demand though.

Tried that. Thank you. Not sure what the deal is. I've gotten drastically different times from about 2.5 minutes to over 4 minutes. I haven't messed with the bios, but I dedicated it to MC in the graphics settings. Should I do it in BIOS as well?

I believe Big Kaiser Daishowa does.

Just got a new laptop, and the benchmark time isn't what I was expecting. Anyone have an idea where I could be lagging? I'm getting a time of 3.98 minutes. I feel like this should do better. Am I expecting too much? Windows 11 Intel® Core™ i9 12950HX 12th Generation NVIDIA RTX A5500 (16 GB GDDR6 dedicated) 64 GB DDR5 1TB SSD

Anyone have issues with 2023 not running the Benchmark file? I'm getting a new PC today and I wanted to compare old vs new, but I'm not able to regen the last toolpath.

Colin, thanks for the reply. A few of these things we already have in play. For instance, T4 is always a Helical #### endmill, 1.0 out of the holder, in a Lyndex SK10-105 holder. T543 is always a 1.6mm drill in an SK6-165 holder, etc etc. And I do have the tool breakage detection worked into my post. With the info from James, being able to output from the machine what's actually in there, I think I'll be able to put a maintainable spreadsheet together that shows which jobs use which tools, which are in the machine, etc. Thanks, I looked at the file you attached, and that'll be a huge help.

it is a matsuura. Is that done at the controller or at the matrix?