I think this forum, the way it is, is one of the many great selling points of this system. It would be sad, if it was to change from the way it is at present.

Hehe....I just got home from work...I'm about to get your file, and I'll let you know Cheers, Mick

I've uploaded a file named SWIRLER BURNER.MC9 to the MC9 folder on the FTP. Its a Swarf 5 Axis toolpath that appears to gouge at both ends of the "tooth". The user I'm trying to help out has tried different methods to eliminate it, as I have. If anyone has a chance, could they take a look at it, and give me some feedback? Thanks in advance. Mick

Hi there, A local user uses Mastercam V9.1 to program their Mill, and also to output DXF files which are read in by their wirecut machine. With V8.1.1, the DXF files worked fine, but since V9+, the DXF files are no longer recognised by the Wirecut machine, using either Acad 2000, R14, or R13 output. They indicated, and I have also noticed, the DXF output between V8.1.1, and V9+ is quite different, noticeably the file size. A 25mm arc, output in DXF from V8.1.1 is 1kb. The Same arc, output in V9+ is 17kb. Is there any way that they would be able to revert to the V8.1.1 DXF type output? (Other than reinstalling V8.1.1). They'd like to just use the one version, as they, a lot of the time, toolpath off the file, then output the DXF from the file to do the wirecutting. They'd prefer not to have two files (V8 and V9) for the one job. Thanks for any help.. Cheers, Mick

Greg, That is one sweet Mopar What engine is in there? Cheers, Mick

The MPLOSP7C post appears to support top and bottom turrets, (G13/G14 codes) in the post. The code is certainly in the post, and I would assume that the correct code is output based on the tool information. I'll check this out later on. Cheers, Mick

Well, it would work. I must admit though, that the Misc. Reals method of setting up the LAP cycles is kind of flakey. I'd really like to see those Okuma posts updated, so that that perhaps you have a checkbox with "Use LAP Cycles" and then, the post reads the info off the parameter page for depth of cut/stock etc and then puts that information in the LAP line(s) where appropriate. Like G82 (Facing). I dont think that even works properly. I'd be willing to beta test any post development for that I had posts I tweaked for the OSP2200/OSP3000 controls, and they were pretty close, but never perfect. Cheers, Mick

Check on your CD. There is MPLOSP7C, which is an Okuma OSP7000L control with C axis support. Is that what you are after? I just tested it, and it certainly supports Mill Turn. Make sure you install the extra post processors, and it will be there. Regards, Mick

There is a local company here, that has an Okuma MacTurn 50. I've been out there twice, and spent a bit of time checking it out. They are indeed a "Integrex/MT" style machine, with the "turret/Spindlehead" in a vertical position over the z axis. Nice machines imho, expecially since they have the Okuma control (I really like Okuma controls). I put an enquiry up for them, as to wether there was a MacTurn post avaliable for Mastercam, and indeed there was. This was about 10-11 months ago, so I'm sure its been refined even further. Cheers, Mick

I didn't understand the problem? grrr...More like it wasn't communicated very well

Grant, The only way I could get it to finish the surface to width, as you require, was to create a base surface, trimmed to the cnetre of the tool. It seems for some reason that it doesn't like the containment boundary. This is weird, as any cavities I've cut, using containment boundaries, never cause a problem like this. I've emailed the file to you, anyway Mick

Hi there, I've a user here that, when they reboot the computer, and try to run Mastercam, the HASP installation program runs, and reinstalls the driver. It appears on rebooting, that the driver uninstalls. Has anyone struck this, and if so, a possible fix? I seem to recall this problem a while back, but I cant, for the life of me, recall the fix. They're running Windows XP professional, with Mastercam V9.1. Cheers, Mike

I sure will. This is the best way to learn Cheers, Mick

Millman, The rolldie looks like a really good solution, though a bit more involved. I'm going to try it today and see how it works out. Again, to everyone thats contributed to this query, I'd like to say thanks. With a forum like this, who would want any other CAM program? Cheers, Mick

thanks

Jay, Your FTP (temp) is asking for a login and password now..is that correct? Cheers, Mick

Thanks Jay...I got up, as the wind is howling outside, and I couldn't sleep... I've been sitting here watching the board Cheers, Mick PS: Was John talking about your FTP, when he said "Under Tech Support from Mastercam"? Or the Mastercam FTP site? Though, is that still going?

Er, I assume both the files mentioned (the one from Jay and the one from John) are both on Jays FTP (which is down atm?) and they aren't on the temp one? If so, both John and Jay, would it be possible to email those files to me? I'd really like them by the weekend if at all possible Cheers, Mick

Thanks for all the replies. I apologised for not responding sooner, but I've been in bed for the last two days with a bad case of the flu :/ I'll grab the examples and look at them first thing in the morning, as its late here, and I really need more sleep. I'll post some feedback after I've looked at these files. Thanks again! Cheers, Mick

Hi there, A local user is trying to machine a variable pitch auger on a rotary (A) axis. From what I can see, it needs to use a 5 axis toolpath with 4 axis outut. He's got no experience with 5 axis toolpaths, and I have very limited experience, so I gave it a go for him. However, I can't get a decent toolpath. I'm sure its something I'm doing wrong, so would someone be able to have a look at the file and give me some feedback on how I should approach it? The file is on the FTP in the MC9 folder, and is called VARIABLE-PITCH-AUGER-TOOLPATH.MC9 Cheers, Mick

Well, aside from that, they're programming one machine (A Hyundai with a Siemens controller) in absolute, and the Centronics in incremental. I would figure that it would be wise to programme both in the same method, to try and maintain some kind of standard. Just my thought Cheers, Mick

Hi there, Sunday afternoon, and here I am sitting, tweaking a post processor for a customer Anyway, anyone here experienced with these controllers? The customer has supplied a couple of sample programs, but they vary in format. One ends with M30, and other doesn't. Also, with drilling cycles, they have a line G43 D4, and then on the following line, a H number (matching the D number). However, in a contouring program, they dont have the D number, only the H number. According to them, both sample programs work (they were manually written), and they want the post to match the output. They are also programming incrementally, but I can't find a Incremental/Absolute switch in the post, except for one that switches an intial G91/G90 output at the start of the program. However, the co-ordinates are still output in absolute. Any input would be greatly appreciated Cheers, Mick

Quote: _______________________________________ I have to laugh at this topic, as this was a great issue for us in the last 3 years _______________________________________ Grant, It went back further than that. They were arguing about it before you were a twinkle in your Production Managers in tray Well, at least that would be about 10 odd years ago. I can recall arguing with an old supervisor, and his bearded plant engineer (hehe...we know the one) about the merits of either tool mounting. One thing I always found interesting, was that the steady rollers didn't suffer from "chip insertion" any where near as much when the tools were inverted (running M03). I guess gravity took care of it. FWIW, My personal preference is to run tools inverted (ie, run M03) Cheers, Mick

Actually, that would be a neat option to have, wouldn't it... The ability to preview file translations....IGES/Parasolid/ASCIS etc... Hehe...One for the "Wants for Version X" list Cheers, Mick

Well, heh...I've never got around to using the Squash command, in all my time using the software I normally create a flat surface and project curves, all the time thinking "damn, need a project curve to plane" like I used to use in UG.. Well, as always, this forum shows its worth once more Cheers, Mick