thanks for the reply Lee, but the version and hasp should match. We did not change MC versions, only needed to update the code prior to it running out. I put the previous code in and still the same result. The programmer just tolde me that he also installed X2 (side by side install) and the net2.0 framwork yesterday also.

After updating hasp codes on one machine testerday we now get the "no sim found" error on startup today.. I did a search on this forum to try and find an answer, have updated the hasp drivers (5.20), have shut the system down and rebooted. None of these attempts have fixed the problem. The hasp utility finds the hasp and haspinfo says it is a good hasp. That machine is a windows 2000 machine. Any ideas? Thanks, Laszlo

We use 3M #410 tape for this kind of stuff

I set mine by picking the details button on the open file page and it sticks. I don't need to change it.

Fonts do not usually import into different CAD systems nicely. The text should be turned into lines and/or other 2d entities before exporting the DXF file.

Solids all the way. They are easier to model and we have not had the need to machine a surface in 5 years.

Sounds like your IT guy re-installed mastercam and wrote over your settings. This is why I save all of my configuration files with a new name. This way if the "default" files get over written, I still have my customized files. I also store these files in a different directory and on CD so I can recover from a total system failure.

We do a lot of flame polishing on molded polycarbonate. We use a hand help propane torch and just pass the flame over the area to polish. It will melt and soften if you do not move the flame around. We use it to eliminate "hit" marks that result from match molding the polycarbonate. We never use coolant of any kind since the polycarbonate will absorb moisture.

I just tested my system and did not get the results you get. I merged a DXF file into an existing design. The geometry did not turn red and I was able to apply dimensions to the geometry. I don't know why you get different results. Maybe someone else can be more helpful.

The "tab" works for me as well as "enter" after each entry.

My general rules are as follows: 1. Conventional mill steel & climb mill aluminum 2. Cut to full width and full depth when using slitting saws. 3. Plenty of coolant (flood) when cutiing tool steels.

Thanks Gord, I'll check these guys out also

Thanks for the reference John. I will check them out. Any forum members need the work?

Do any of you perform digitizing services? I need some existing molds digitized. The specifics are: 1. Mold sizes approx. 14.0" X 10.0" X 3.0" 2. 3D contoured surfaces (shoe insert molds) 3. Need good smooth surface models for Mcam input 4. A +/- .005 tolerance to existing molds is acceptable. You can post a reply in this forum, or email me. Thanks, Laszlo

start 0 end 255 seems to work for me

I couldn't have said it better John!

I don't know how big your shop is but I was in a similar situation once. We had 4 programmers and 10 machinists. It got to the point where you had to know which machinist was going to get the job so you wouldn't have interupt what you were working on and make the changes (the shop foreman had more pull than the engineering manager). The engineering manager came up with a plan for short 15-30 minute discussions every week between the programmers and machinists. We discussed "best in class" methods for various operations, set-ups, etc. A couple of things were amazing. Firstly, we were able to develope standards that everyone was able to live with. Secondly, it is interesting how these machine people will back down from their "it HAS to be done this way" attitude when in a discussion with their co-workers. I think programmers and machinists both benefit from this and the time spent on these short meetings saved a lot of down time for the company.

Ok, I do get a blink that redisplays the WCS and scale info at the bottom of the page but the toolbars and such do not blink.

I don't get the screen flicker or the save as dialog box. What puzzles me is why I get the message "MCX File has changed. Save file?" dialog after I open some files , do nothing (not even change the display in any way) and try and open another file.

You should upgrade. Keep in mind that the interface is really different and it will take some time to become familiar with it. The best way to get familiar with the interface is to use it. Good luck.

Most of the solidworks files I pull in need to be rotated and position. I usually set my cplane to right side and do a +90 rotation. My preference is to orient the part the way I want it in 3D space.

Quite honestly, we all use Mc a little differently and small issues for one user may be big issues for the next. I prefer to test drive the new releases and make the determination myself. If you do the "side by side" installation as mentioned, you can always use the version that is working for you if you have trouble. I opened mr2 for testing and have not gone back.

When I was a UG user I initially got frustrated with parametric input and constraints. Once I figured how to use them correctly it greatly improved my performance and ability to alter my designs. I found it easy to model a family of parts starting with one paramterized and constrained initial design. Things like mold bases were easy to chang by inputting things like mold length, width, cavity depth and stroke. Any custom mold base was produced in minutes from the initial file. I do miss this. We do not use solidworks for tooling design here and all of our tooling is designed in MC solids so the solidworks add on does me no good. However, I can accomplish similar results as UG by altering me 2D geometry used for the solids and regenerating the solid. I also process changes in a similar fasion. It takes a bit longer than editing a parameter file but it is still efficient. If the CAD software cost was not important, I would use UG. I think that MC solids does a very good job for the price. With any of these systems it is a matter of knowing how to use the software provided. Having ranted for a bit, I would like to see MC solid modeling add more functionality from the parasolid kernel.

I would think you need the tooling specifications from the customer. Most vacuum forming machine have specific requirments for mold size, mounting holes, auxillary equipment like plug assits. I would visit the customer and look at some of the tooling they already have to get a better feel for their expectations. You want to give them a tool that will meet their needs and not your bosses.

Surface machining used to be the only alternative with the CAD/CAM packages I was using. I now have 5 years using mastercam solids for mold cavities and have NEVER had to machine a single surface. Solid model what you want to cut and let mcam do the rest.