Interesting parameter differences. Why do you guys turn off LV3 off ever @Paul Anderson? I'm not familiar with top mapped approach point. I always have G54.4Pn in my code (Work Setting Error Compensation) which REQUIRES no linear position move until after G68.2 I missed you not having that function activated. My mistake. There's different rules for different functions and different combinations of functions.

As long as you understand what MockSim is and is not, what Vericut is and is not, what CAMplete is and is not you can make educated decisions about what fits your need. MockSim doe NOT check G-Code. Tied to a Postability post it is a good solution for most things. Again, it's not fully simulating ALL the motion in your machine like M-Codes, etc... Vericut... they simulate the actual G-Code that will run in your machine. As good as your control file and machine stuff is determines how good your simulation is. By and large it is the gold standard for simulation. You can create your own machines if you desire to learn or you can buy them from Vericut, or you can hire someone to build them for you. YOu have choices. Vericut is NOT an integrated post processing solution so you will need a post either from your CAM vendor or from ICAM, or somewhere else. CAMplete... they simulate the G-Code created from their posted code. You cannot import and edited code. CAMplete IS an integrated Post Processing solution that will simulate the factory G and M-Codes. You have almost as much control over your machine as you would in a Vericut machine. You have limited machine editing capability and you cannot create your own machines. That is not an anticipated feature. The machines are factory configured meaning Matsuura, Okuma, Kern, Mazak, Haas, etc... has given their blessing on the accuracy of the models, motion, and functionality. Because CAMplete is an intagrated Post Processing solution, you have control over the code. The NC Formats are user customizable. Typically a basic NC Format is given to the customer that will run the machine well. I've got a decade and a half's experience developing NC Formats and I've got highly tuned NC Formats that take advantage of the majority of the features and functions of the Matsuuras (since that95% of what I spend my time on) and I'm adding new stuff all the time based on customer requests. Knowing the tools, knowing their strengths, weaknesses and capabilites os the key to getting the best solution for you. For me, nothing beats CAMplete. For you, Postability and Vericut may be best, for someone else, MockSim will do the job. Know your tools.

I figured that was going to be part of the equation. Just wanted confirmation.

Speaking of Vericut, anyone using it to post yet?

Not knowing your machine's G/M codes, this is how I would format my programs. O0000 (MASTERCAM - 2023) (POST - DOOSAN_VCF_FANUC_AGG) G00 G90 G17 G20 G40 G69 G80 G100 M11 M39 (B-AXIS UNLOCK, A-AXIS UNLOCK) G00 G17 G90 G56B49.741 A5.93 <<<< Activate work offset with Tilt and Rotary positions only. Linear positions are after TWP is active. G68.2 X0. Y0. Z0. I275. J310. K243.109 G53.1 M10 M38 (B-AXIS LOCK, A-AXIS LOCK) X0 Y0 <<<<<< linear positions here G43 H35 M165 P9832 M165 P9810 Z1.0 F100. <<<< NEVER move the machine around unless the Z is home with the probe UNLESS the probe is on AND positioning in protected mode. M165 P9810 Z-.25 F5. M165 P9814 D2. S2. <<<<<< Decimal points don't matter.... until they do. User them always to remove all doubt. M165 P9810 Z1. M165 P9833 G28 Z0. G49 G69 M05 G200 M30 If you still encounter problems it's one of two things; parameters not set correctly, or your probing software does not support probing while in TWP. I'm pretty sure software F-4012-0519-AA or later is good to go. F-4012-0519-AW or later is best if you can get it.

CCCS is AWESOME. Anytime I've ever needed anything Mastercam related they've provided exceptional assistance.

I did a video Mastercam project to CAMplete TruePath G-Code Export start to finish. There's no audio. I just created a document that explains the processes in more detail. Keep in mind I've created a Mastercam Machine Definition, Control Definition and Post (renamed generic 5-Axis Mastercam post) - which is ONLY used for the text (Canned Cycles, Canned Text, Misc. Ints., Misc Reals, etc...) it does NOT generate good code for anything. If anyone wants the document, DM me with your e-mail and I'll send it. Enjoy! https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nozv0bedx807rhn4z7xkj/Mastercam-to-CAMplete-Start-to-Finish.mp4?rlkey=wu5xpoyrx5rgzeloviaaj6ofp&dl=0

That's pretty awesome! You may want to make sure your high speed modes (G131, G05.1, etc...) are OFF (G130, G05.1Q0, etc...)

Well, there's a better than 99% chance you're right when assuming gender and programmers. I'm not a betting man, but if it came to betting on the gender of a programmer, even I'd take that bet.

I think I may have confused 2D HST which DOES stay down exactly as shown in the Tebis clips so between two paths (2D HST and gcode's sample) it is manageable. Possibly more work that desired but, it's definitely possible.

Working on something... keep in mind it's a work in process so feedback is MUCH appreciated. You've got mail.

BITD (mid 1990's) I did a test between wireframe toolpaths (2D Swept) and a surface toolpath (flowline) and pretty much came up with the same results as you did. The wireframe toolpath produced far less code than the surface toolpath did. What I never did a deep dive into was the exact reasons "why". Someone smarter than me will have to come and provide that answer. Where is Jack Summers or @Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc. when we need them?

Post a fragment of a part, or even a sample Mastercam file that is "similar" to the part you're trying to machine then we can help you, which we STILL want to do. We're ALL in the same boat regardless of what you may think. We want Mastercam to continue to develop into a better product, more efficient toolpaths, more efficient metal removal strategies, etc... it doesn't get better unless we can see examples. Many of us submit product enhancement requests to Mastercam. This could fall into that category if you'd just post up a file. Yes, it REALLY is that easy. That fact you continue down the path you continue to go down tells ME you're not interested in getting help, you're just in here to shill for another CAM system. As for me being very unfriendly. Fair enough. That's your (and probably some others if I'm being honest) opinion. There's a fairly large number of people I have and do help all over the world that may disagree though. I probably am a pain in the @$$ to a lot of people, but at least I bring A LOT of information and experience to the table to offset some of the negatives. ALL of this "unfriendliness" could have been avoided though by just posting a sample file at your first or second post. It REALLY was that easy. You chose this path, not us. Welcome to the dark underbelly of the interwebz. And I suspect this topic is going to disappear into the ether at some point in the not too distant future.

Correction... CAMplete does not support posting the probing paths from external CAM systems that are not Fusion360. I heard a vicious rumor from a customer when you get CAMplete you also get Fusion360. This cutomer programs their probing paths in Fusion360 then program their toolpaths in Mastercam then they merge the projects in CAMplete and simulate/collision check. I can probably help you navigate that if you want to go down that path. I've got the technology .

Vericut and ICAM also allow you to create your own machines. CAMplete does not unfortunately. CAMplete is an integrated Post Processor. Once the code is posted, then simulation/collision check can be run. Since Autodesk purchased CAMplete the pricing has changed somewhat. Perpetual licensing is no longer available. Cost per license is around 1/3 of what it once was if you just buy it though a vendor (NexGen CAM, DSI, etc...). CAMplete maintains parterships with some machine tool builders so if your machine comes with a seat of CAMplete or is available as a option with your machine, the cost can be lower than the normal street price. As was mentioned not all machine models/builders are available. Machine builders I am aware of that are available; Doosan, FANUC Robodrill, GROB, Haas, Hermele, Hurco, Kern, Kitamura, Kiwa, Matsuura, Mazak, Okuma, and Yasda. There could be others as well. These are just the ones I'm aware of. I've been using it since 2007. It's been a great product for me and a lot of my customers. I've managed to make some machines into other machines through some features I have access to in order help customers with a posting solution. I've done this for an OKK, for an Enshu, and a Mori Seiki. The collision checking isn't really accurate for the most part, and the customers were OK with that, they just wanted good code which I was able to provide with their guidance. Normal post processor turn around times are days, weeks, months or years... I was able to get them good code in hours while they watched. YMMV

Hundreds, if not thousands of users here work under the same conditions as you (i.e. cannot share proprietary data), but you know what, the people GENUINELY desiring help, figure out a way to not violate NDA's AND get the help they need/desire. If you were here to help the community you would share your findings not just your critiques. I may be the only one, I may not be, but I think you are a shill for another software brand in a Mastercam User forum. Nobody cares if you're good at english or not. Really. There are people from all over the world here all the time and they manage to get what they are looking for most of the time. The fact you refuse to post even a sample part makes you suspicious. We roast software pirates here for sport. Since you're allegedly a legal user, why not post a small portion of a part, or create some geometry that illustrates your contentions. Verification of legality is more important at this point because you are posting in a suspicious manner, repeatedly. NOBODY CARES IF YOU'RE GOOD AT ENGLISH. NOBODY!

Unfortunately CAM system code will never be as efficient as you could produce by hand. The reasons for this are many and include but not limited to geometric issues/settings, post settings and toolpath settings.

Let us know what he says. They add stuff every build and I don't always pay as close attention to the new features as I probably should. What can I say, I'm a work in progress.

I wonder how "attach a sample file" translates. So "my English is not so good" absolved him of not attaching a file?

There's a work around to always work locally.... and data gets saved here; C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Local\Autodesk\Autodesk Fusion 360\TUTYKMFVYYLA\W.login\F\

I'm already getting that hard-core Pro/E magic button vibe that the shills were pushing as the greatest thing since sliced bread back in the 90's.... and the STEP NC magic that NEVER materialized beyond BASIC prismatic parts. Seems to me they were ahead of everyone else but it was abandoned in the early 2000's best I can recall. Programming is hard. SO many variables, unwritten rules for anything but the most basic of parts. We shall see. I hope I am wrong though.

I'm on a plane... I'll put together a sample that everyone can download this evening unless someone beats me to it to see the settings.

We're here to help, and shorten the curve where we can.

To use the strategy correctly and I believe Ron covered it, you have to enable step up, then go full length DOC, keep tool down length of part and it just works as the video shows. This dude no matter how bad his english is, just is not listening, and, it feels like he's back door shilling. The one who shall not be named used to do that. Then he'd create like 5 user accounts that would jump on his bandwagon to support his shill. I've seen this show before. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'... The gain with keeping the tool down and following is machine performance. Obviously a late 1990's machine with max feeds in the 400-800 IPM range won't see the types of gains a high performance machine of today that is capable of feeds in the 2,300+IPM range. The strategy is sound and in actual test cutting (not backplot times) it's impressive.

In my 30+ years experience programming, roughing strategies take less time than finishing strategies. Perhaps it's due to they types of parts I see a lot of (non prismatic, organic, textured, and/or finish sensitive). Often times the CAD model by itself does not contain every detail. Not trying to dissuade you by any means, just trying to bring some manage expectations. But even a prismatic part... let's say on the print you have a .0008" profile tolerance. How will it handle a feature like that if it's not in the MBD (and chances are it's not). Maybe that's not your world, but it's mine, and If I have a half dozen or so features (on an easy day) that are that way, I've found I spend more time massaging toolpaths when I use the automated functions (ATP, FBM, etc...), that said, I do use them when practical, I di use ProDrill. It automates plane creation pretty awesome, and Multi-Axis Auto Roughing sees a fair amount of action on my work station. So, do your due diligence, investigate, and manage your higher-ups expectations. It may be they've already drank the "Easy Button" kool-aid, in which case... good luck. You're gonna need it. Regardless, we'll help where we can.