A similar thing happens to me when saving X5 files as X2. The options is greyed out until I select a different storage location. Then the options tab is selectable. I can then select any storage location for the file including the original. Don't know why, its just my work around method.

The reference to a non-manifold body is because the boolean operation (subtract) would have 2 results. The block will have a cavity for the part outside and a solid for the inside of your part. Use the -->solids -->non-associative -->remove na menu and you should get a result. I do vacuum molds all the time and I get the part solids from a solidworks system. I find it much easier and more reliable in the long run to create the mold geometry from scratch. I create 2D geometry and new solids and do not try and use the imported solid. If you need to make 1 change to the mold afterwards you will not regret the extra time spent on creating the mold from scratch.

Yes, regen won't do anything unless you correct the problem first. Sounds like you would need to re-select the chain in the operation with the error. I guess you found a different work around.

-->operations manager -->solids tab is where you regen solids, but I'm not sure it will fix all of your trouble.

The boolean add works better when all of the "tool" solids touch the "target" solid. You may have to do the boolean add a cpouple/few times to get all of your plates into one solid

I think the part files that make up the assembly need to be in the same location (folder) as the assembly file.

Some of my supplier have trouble with the DXF or DWG files I create. All problems go away when I use the "break drafting entities into lines" function before saving

A non associative boolean will always delete the history. Do this operation before you add all the holes and then you will have the history for the all operations after thenon-associative boolean.

A cancel option would be great!

I think that adding or subtracting entities from the chain have always required a re-selection for the solid to update. You can move the same entities around and retrim them and the regen will work without re-selecting the chain.

I knew this was going to get me. I just repositioned a hole in one of my components. The solid updated fine. the dimension that described the hole position turned RED, then after recalculation changed back to the original color but since that dimension had "2PL" added to it, it did not really update. The old dimension was still dispalyed. Based on the number of replies to my original post, I guess I am the only one that does not like the new method but I will issue another warning for drawings with potential for incorrect dimensions on them.

You will probably spend more than 10 minutes trying to figure out how to recover. You always do a better job the second time around anyway

That message usually alloes you to change the color of the corrupt entity. I change the color to something I don't use. You can then select the entity by color and see what it is. It is usually a point that can be deleted.

This is why the suggestion to use big step overs and tolerance values is a good one. Not a lot of time lost. My only gripe with trying another path to "get er done" may lead some people to try another software package also.

Any part properly modelled, yes. There probably is a better path to use, but if the response for providing help on the waterline path is to use another path, then why offer the water line path?

Any part that is modelled correctly, yes. Again, there could be better paths to use but the waterline path should work also. If the response is to use another path, then why even offer waterline?

Perhaps a small radius where the 2 5/8 arcs intersect would help

It works here with X5 and XP

Like specv said, just don't pick the arc near a quadrant or end point

X5 drafting is different than in previous versions. This is probably due to a user request, but I prefer the way it used to work. Since I do all of my design work and solid modeling in MC, I also produce the detail drawings in MC. I use the "Smart Dimension" 95% of the time. In previous versions, you could select the things to dimension and then "Adjust Text" to add comments like 2PL while still live in the dimensioning function. When you drag the pointer over to select the "Adjust Text" button the dimension shown may change since the pointer position helps to determine the type of dimension (horizontal, verticle, etc) you are doing. This was never a problem ssince the dimension value remained dynamic and would correct itself once the pointer was back to where you wanted to place the dimension. In X5, using the adjust text button to add comments will lock the value to what ever was displayed when the button was selected. I know I could place the dimension first and then go in to adjust text but I may need to move the position of the dimension if my comments don't fit correctly. I could also pick the type of dimension (horizontal, verticle, etc) and it will not use the pointer position to determine the type of diemnsion and all is fine. Each of these options is an extra step in the process. It is not really a big deal to hit the H or V key, but my pupose for this thread is to alert those that use dimensioning to the potential problem of placing an incorrect diemnsion on the drawing. The dimension is no longer dynamic once the adjust text function is used.

What type of machines are you interested in building? The only reason for asking is that some one may have already done it for your machine

It sounds like you used your own data to come up with the formulas that claculate the minutes per tool. Start gathering the data on programming times and I'm sure you can develop a formula for that. We do not quote the programming time since it is part of the overhead used to come up with our shop rate. I do need to estimate the time for scheduling purposes. I'm always conservative in my estimate since interuptions and emergencies are a way of life here. What is important here is that it is completed on time and my conservative estimates usually allow us to complete ahead of schedule.

I agree John, that seeing the part would help with suggestions to make waterline work. That was the real issue and solutions should not be to abandon the toolapth and try something else. A different toolpath suggestion could get the job done better, but would not help with the initial problem.

I guess I have to take exception with suggesting a different toolpath when one does not work. Although waterline might not be the "best" solution, it should still function properly and produce a toolpath for any part. Other's have posted good suggestions like big stepover and tolerance, minimum depth, and just running with defaults at first. One way to determine the "best" solution is to experiment with several methods. This can be difficult when some toolpaths are difficult to work with.

Anything new CAN cause problems or delays. Load up X5 and play with it for a couple of hours. Generate and post some code to make sure all is well. If there are any concerns, jump into X4 and get your work done. A small investment in time will provide yor answer.