Rick, in the operations manager on that .mcx5 file within X6, go to files, edit, control definition, and look in the post processor section. Make sure the post selected doesn't have a red X next to it.

My min and max arc radius are set to .01/99. in the arc filter settings for my machines.

Rick, the HST's are individually listed now when you right click in the operation manager. Previously, you had to click "Surface high speed toolpath..." and then pick your actual toolpath.

It is the "HMM kernel arc creation" I really have no idea what this setting actually does. I just know that the 3d toolpaths have more arcs in X6. The verify is much quicker with these arcs and the pokey machines seem to be benefiting.

Corner rounding in 2d contour prevents a cutter from barking in an internal sharp corner without having to modify corner geometry.

- Much faster regen speed - Much faster verify speed - Stock model works great with smaller simple parts, works excellent with rest roughing paths and loads into verify quicker than .stl - .stl saved from verify after referencing a stock model yields a much smaller .stl file - Bullnose support in the optirough and dynamic roughing paths is a huge improvement from X5. - Capability of right clicking all Surface High Speed toolpaths in the operations manager - I noticed the arc filter works much better. I'm getting more arcs in 3d paths than I did in X5. I did change an arc setting in the MCAMX Control Panel Applet that may have done the trick, but regardless, I noticed the improvement in X6.

One other thing. Stock model displays correctly if I use the ramp feature. It does not display correctly with depth cuts.

I created a new X6 file with a custom tool and reproduced the stock model issue that misrepresents the the actual stock removed. Again, it backplots and verifies correctly. I uploaded "CUTOM_TOOL_STOCK_MODEL.Z2G" into the "Mat_&_Tools_Libary" folder on the ftp server. Sorry for misspelling custom, but it was too late. I also sent the file to my reseller and qc. Keep in mind, this tool was created in X6 and in this particular file. I did not import the geometry from another file.

I created an undefined custom tool with the geometry on a separate level. This is a tool and geometry that have been used in several hundred toolpaths without a problem in the toolpath, backplotting or verify, but the stock model displayed it incorrectly. Absolutely no warnings. Did you try using depth cuts to recreate the issue?

Hmmm, I thought Depocam created the HSM toolpaths. I have pro/e's Pro/Toolmaker 9.0 (former depocam from what I was told) on my workstation and it is nearly identical to the HSM toolpaths.

For those of you using custom tools, I have just noticed that stock model MAY NOT represent a custom tool. I redefined this tool as a bull nose rather than a custom tool as an easy work around in this case.

Rickster, that model you're displaying is very, very similar to the work I do. I would use stock model for the roughing ops and possibly semi-finish ops, but no way in hell will I use it for finishing that part. I tried a few times and gave up on it. The crunch time is ridiculous (verify is much faster and saving an .stl) and as gcode has mentioned, it will CRASH.

For roughing paths, I use .005 path tol. and .003 tool shape tol. The crunch time is not bad and seems fairly accurate when I use it as stock when I verify. For finishing I use .002-.003 path tol. and .001-.002 tool shape tol. Crunch time is long depending on the toolpath, but I don't see too many advantages of using stock model for finishing anyway, therefore, I avoid using it.

Ah, I get it. I have been kinda doing the same as you, but not using the saved and verified .stl as stock in the rest rough operations. I have been using the stock model in the rest rough ops, but I have had a couple crashes when using stock model causing me to go back to the .stl as stock method. Does that make sense? Haha!

Neuro. How did you disassociate the toolpaths from the stock model?

Now and then it will crash when closing X6, using ramsaver and sometimes referencing a stock model when verifying. Always save twice before closing X6 in case it corrupts the file (haven't had a corrupt file in X6 yet, but just a precaution). You will at least have a backup in your shared MCX folder.

Be careful when that warning pops up. Now and then I noticed that the tools associated with that toolpath and other toolpaths may change without you knowing it.

Happens often to me too gcode. In fact it behaves the same as it did in X5MU1 for me. Nothing you can do about it as far as I know.

Neuro. I changed the feedrate and plunge rate on a 2d contour ramp and the path went dirty. I regenerated. Opened the parameters and changed the feedrate and plunge rate again. This time it didn't go dirty. Just for @#%$! and grins, change the feedrate and plunge rate on one of those toolpaths and see what happens.

Yep Neuro!! SUCKS!! And, it doesn't happen all the time. My partner and I are taking bets whether the paths are gonna go dirty or not.

Keith, I hope you submitted that file to qc along with some 3d glasses.

I kinda figured that may be the case since it doesn't happen every time.

I made an active report that nearly emulates the X+ setup sheet. But, I have not found the solution to the original topic on this thread. How do you eliminate the blank pages?

Tony, it doesn't comp like it should. In top view it will not violate the boundary. In bottom and front view it will violate the boundary.

Ah, hahaha. I actually registered on his forum in its inception, but I honestly can't remember the last time I have paid it a visit. I'll have to check on that later.