Thanks Roger, I'll do that. Rekd, nice little tip. Thanks

plastav, I don't think I want to do that. The tools in a lot of these programs don't have thier parameters defined. Wouldn't loading my config file change some of the Job Set-up attributes? Roger, Are those post changes you suggested? I am not authorized to edit posts at this company.

Thanks Roger. I'll give it a try. I may be back with questions though.

Hey Jim, Are things picking up over there? I define all of my tools. I have several libraries that I pull from. I use tools step, peck and coolant but some of the other guys don't and if you need to modify one of thier programs or vise versa it's real easy to get in trouble. Just looking for a quick check system.

Thanks for the input guys buutttt... I don't want to lose flexibility with cycles either and that's not the point. We have six programmers here and some don't define tools they define parameters in the operation. If they copy and paste a spot drill then change the tool to a drill and forget to change the cycle type BOOM G81 2.500 deep in stainless steel. Not pretty. How about a pop up that will remind you your tool is not made for a certain cycle and let you either say Ya or Nay? I also G81 with thru coolant drills and bore with endmills, locate parts with dowel pins and the like, but I don't drill with taps or tap with drills. I don't edit our posts here and the guy that does seems a little gun shy. He's afraid of a change having an affect on something else in the post so changes are like pulling teeth. Is there something I can set up in my mc9.txt file that will, at least, prevent this from happening to me? Any Suggestions?

Roger, Funny thing, we already are making the changes to our posts but it seems funny that this step had to be taken to prevent something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's a fix for a symptom not the actual problem. It's like taking Nyquil for a cold, it doesn't cure the cold but it helps with the symptoms. Anyone else have opinions on this?

That's what I mean. I would think that the cycle options would be tool sensitive (for lack lack of a better term). You wouldn't want to tap with an end mill would you?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind having canned drill cycles, ie G81, G82, G83 etc..., as selectable drill cycles with a tap as the defined tool. In my experience, I don't believe I have ever had a need to peck drill, bore or ream with a tool defined as a tap. I say this because we have had several instances of a program reaching the floor with a G81 or G83 which is the default cycle if the tool is not properly defined or if the "Use tools step, peck, coolant" box is not selected in job set up. Why is this an option for a tap? Has anyone else had this problem? It's seems to be just another check that has to be done before posting a program. I think there should only be ONE way to skin this cat. Any thoughts?

have you tried using an engraving macro for your numbering?

Mental Health

RETEST OR RESTRICT TO THE RIGHT LANE ! You realize this will cause a problem when they make left hand turns. Oh, I guess they already do that.

Excactly how do you want to use it? It can be dangerous if not used properly.

Rek'd, My heart goes out to all who don't have access to the latest and greatest. Does life suck without it? A lot of our customers are providing models nowdays. Prints are going the way of the dinosuar and Grey Davis. Oops. Sorry for that. NOOOOT!

Happy Monday All , I don't think anyone has posted this in the Forum yet. I just found a work around solution for multiple STLs in verify. I have been looking for a way to import an STL file which would acurately represent matertial with vise and custom jaws or any fixturing I might have with clamps. The solution is to copy the solid models of all the pieces you want to represent in Verify to a layer of their own. Please note all parts must touch each other for this to work. Nothing out in space. Do a Boolean ADD operation and make one big chunk from it all. This will now import into Verify without a watertight error and screwed up models. Try It!

Quickmike, We ran a cuuter with this geometry in 304SST at 500sf 50% radial .05DOC and .05C/T (chip per tooth). Sounded like it was cutting butter. Great for roughing open pockets on a horizontal. Just stay away from walls. Use a draft angle. I think the operator didn't like the cycle time reduction. He had to reload parts too fast.

Hey Bucket, Guess I missed that thread. But thanks for pointing that out.

Pretty Weird: Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Spaceballs, the movie was LOL.

Rekd, Is this the s/u shett produced by the VB script you posted a couple of weeks ago? We've been looking to make ours totally automatic and I like the format you have. Ours needs help.

To All, I reported the no retract drill cycle problem and the no retract on contour mill to Q.C. at Mastercam. This was the response I recieved this A.M.: Hello, Thank you very much for letting us know about these errors. I agree with you that the first one is a bug, and I logged it in to the database. It is number 23966. Your second problem, however, seems to have been fixed by either SP1 or SP2(which has not been publicly released yet.). Verify is showing the tool to be gouging the top surface of the part. I would suggest going to our website and downloading SP1 and/or waiting until SP2 is released. SP2 is currently in the process of being duplicated, and should be released sometime soon. If that doesn't solve the problem then please feel free to let me know and I'll take another look at it. Thanks again, and have a nice day. Justin Dawson Quality Control CNC Software, Inc. Thank you CNC Software for your timely response. I appreciate good customer service.

Millman, May^Mayday, Isn't it nice to have to modify a post to prevent something from happening that shouldn't happen in the first place. If only things did what they were told to do. In the next world maybe. If it hurts when you do that, don't do that!

Thad, No it did not do exactly what it was supposed to do. I told it to feed at Z-.9 then retract to Z.1 abs. before going to the next hole. With the G99 output it did not retract above the part! Take a look at the sample I put on the FTP. Backplot it then post it. Take a look at the code. Do you have access to Vericut or another code verification program?

Happy Friday All, I had a problem with my code not matching what I programmed. The Scenario: Drilling holes on different Z planes. I chained points which were created at Z0 and Z-1.000 in a single operation.. I set the Clearance Plane at .1 Abs. Retract height at .1 Inc., Top of Stock at 0 Inc. and depth at - .75 Inc. The ‘use clearance only at start and end of operation’ was not selected. Backplot showed the tool retracting to the .1 Abs. clearance plane between all holes. Verify showed the same. Exactly what I wanted to clear an obstruction in the -1.000 pocket. The posted machine code was different. There was a G99 on the Z-1.000 holes which kept the tool down at Z-.900. This scrapped my part broke a tool and P.O. my set up guy. If the Clearance Plane Height and the Retract Height are set at the same value a G99 is output regardless of ‘use clearance only at start and end of operation’ selection or Incremental setting. Also, Lets say you have .010 stock left on a surface and you retract is set at .09 Inc., .01+.09= .100 the same as the clearance plane, this will also output a G99 regardless of ‘use clearance only at start and end of operation’ selection. BEWARE Mon Frere! I placed a sample program on the FTP site called G99 G98 and Retract BUGs.MC9 If anyone wants to take a look I set up several ops with different settings. Posting with MPFAN will show the discrepancy.

Marc, V9.1 level 3, all patches, haven't installed SP1 as of yet.

I rarely save NCI's. We have a server storage space problem so we try not to save unnecessary files. I don't think that's the problem. I was just wondering if anyone else has seen this phenomenon.