Just wanted anyone who is interested to know that David Colin has updated his tool management software for use with Mastercam X6. It will now allow you to manage holders for V8 Thru X6. He has also recently added the ability to change background and foreground colors and font styles. This will probably only apply to people who are still using the older style surface toolpaths. Added link below.

Download

That's a nice machine

what video card are you running... thats the biggest issue with Verify problems

Ya I forgot one of the more important ingredients. It's a Quadro FX4600 with 768Megs of Ram. I would like to step up to a FX5600 but thats not in the cards right now either.

actually , parts this big push the technology of all software/ hardware.

at my last job we did some C-17 wing skins that were 150 x 25 feet x 1.25 thick

We did started them in V9 and finished up in X using nothing but Vefiry

 

Verify works well for most work if you've got decent hardware.

It gags on the stuff moldmakers churn out, but I can choke Vericut with some of my impeller projects too.

 

It would be interesting to know what hardware CamMan1 is running.

I am running a Dell Precision T7500 with dual 3.00GHZ Xeon's with 16Gigs of Ram, Dual 80Gig 10,000rpm Raptors at Raid 0 running Win7 64bit and dual Dell 30 inch monitors. Even with this Rig doing 170 inches of verification is slow. I appreciate everyones input on this matter and If it were up to me we would have a seat of Vericut. Unfortunately for me I have been programming parts like this for a while with no mistakes which leads management to believe I don't need something like Vericut. For now I will have to live with doing small sections at a time. Makes it a pain though and just allows more room for error. I just decided to do a 72.00" section and it went a lot faster.

I am programming some aircraft wing components that are very large. The material size is 220.00" long by 20.00" wide by 3.00" thick. The parts finish at 218.00" long by 18.00" wide by 2.500" thick. These parts are fairly complicated. I need to be able to verify theses parts in Mastercam. I am verifying at high quality with my Tool tolerance at .005 and my STL tolerance at .005. verifying true solids not turbo. I have found a limitation in verify. If my stock is defined over 177.00" long the verification looks like crap and the STL compare looks even worse. I have tried box, soild and stl for my material. Doesn't make a difference. Has anyone else seen this isssue before and if so does anyone have a workaround.

Machineworks is the company that does the verification module. It could be that they have changed the way it works from ver9 days. It is also possible that it would function this way if Mastercam built the front end to use the functionality if it still exists. Hopefully one of the guys from CNC will shed some light on your question.

Verification is a third party program that is used by many other CAD/CAM companies also. It would be up to that developer to implement this into the program. Mastercam just builds a front end that links to the third party software to make it function.

I think that the internal corner rounding radius is long overdue. I am glad to see it works well for full chained contours. It does not seem to function at all when remachining corners. Am I possibly doing something wrong. If I do all full 2d contour it rounds the corners to the radius I specify. If I change it to remachining it does not include the rounding radius specified. If it not supposed to work for remachining than the parameter should be greyed out. I know that it is probably harder than it sounds for the guys coding this enhancement but it sure would be nice if the corner rounding radius worked for the remachining also.

If you have Cimco Edit you can run the code thru backplot. I posted it out and looked at it in Cimco backplot and it looked fine

Well to get back to the main issue. It would be very nice if the next release would include treestyle parameter pages with the ability to select a holder for the standard surface toolpaths. I just believe that if they are going to have the standard toolpath types they should get equal treatment along with the HST. I would just hope that anyone else out there that has the same issue please contact your reseller or CNC Software to request this as an enhancement.

This developer is a direct employee of CNC Software. He works here in the building. Is there a purpose to your comment?

Yes I was referring to the fact it sounded like a third party developer was involved. I know that building this software is a hard task and that sometimes CNC has to got to a third party for development. I am glad to see that I misunderstood. Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers.

Sorry for being late to the game folks, but I was out of town on vacation and just getting back into things here. We have the developer looking into the issue and it does have to do with the vertical arc entry being set to zero. Not sure why yet but we are looking at it and figuring how ho to provide a fix. That fix could be a patch or a re-release of X6. More to come as I get details.

Jim

We have the "developer" looking into the issue and it does have to do with the vertical arc entry being set to zero. I thought CNC Software Claimed that they developed these toolpath strategies?

There is another way that I've used to work around this problem.

 

Create a ghosted drill point somewhere off the part and use the tool you want as the drill with your toolholder picked.

 

Put that in front of the operation in question, and when you go to verify, the toolholder will show up cleanly and then can be adjusted accordingly!

I have been told that this works by my reseller. I have tried it over and over with different scenarios with no luck. It always defaults back to the Holder.mcx tool profile when I backplot or verify.

Well thats a nice little tool. Not being overly familiar with it I have to ask this question. If I run it on a toolpath and it finds that my tool is too short or whatever, will it split the toolpath for me, or do I have to create 2 toolpaths with progressivly(?) longer tools?

If it doesn't then it doesn't really help much other than to tell me my tool is too short, which I would discover anyways after having to run the verify over the model.

No it checks holder clearance only. Really only works well for 2D stock in a single plane.

I am OK with it... thats not the type of work I do day to day, but as JP said, you have a legit concern.

If you would like to send me one of your flowlining closed angle surface with some check surfaces toolpaths/geo and the info for your tool & holder I would be happy to see if I can help you come up with a workable solution.

 

 

agreed, but we do... so until it's fixed my offer is on the table

Like I said I use a program written by David Colin that will select a tool profile you have previously drawn from a specified directory and overwrite the Holder.mcx file in the tools directory. I don't have any problems figuring out workarounds. I have been doing that with Mastercam for almost 20 years. I have used the method that you have described many times. There are instances when you draw the holder as part of the tool and Mastercam looks at the holder part of the tool you have drawn as the actual tool and will not allow for complete tool motion.

Well looks like they must have had a lot of complaints because they pulled the X6 download links!

+1 Teh Bear

 

Been drawing tools and holders for years as custom tools, you can give it any profile you want and it will backplot and verify. (Got bit once by a set screw protruding from the holder.... (Don't forget about instructing the operator to take care of the screws)

 

I attached a screenshot showing an old school parallel toolpath with a custom defined tool/holder backplotting, you can also see the quick & easy geo to define the profile...

So easy a 6yr. old non-circle member can do it

Try you method flowlining a closed angle surface with some check surfaces using a lollipop with gouge checking turned off and see how well your method works. But I see what you a trying to say is that your OK with having to draw you profiles for all your tools? I have also been drawing tool profiles for years. Yes anybody fairly proficient in Mastercam can do it. The problem is that we shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to use workarounds. Luckily David Colin's program helps a lot in selecting a profile. Bottom line is that it needs to be fixed. I agree with kccadcam you should be able to save a tool with a holder as an assembly.

We have a Mori NH5000 in our shop. Definitely one of the better machine we have. Make sure if you get one of theses that you definitely anchor it down. It is a rigid machine but not as rigid as the older models. Our management decided to set ours on pads on a 8" slab. Not a satisfactory set up. Definitely has plenty of power and speed. Biggest bonus was the memory. Ours has 275,000K standard memory mode and 16,000,000K tape run mode.

I have done this in a pinch but it I often need accurate shank definitions such as a 1/16" end mill with a .125" shank and I need to make sure I am not gouging the work with the tool shank. Also, reduced shank tools, etc... With 5-axis programs I need the shank and holder definitions to be accurate to make sure there aren't crashes or gouges.

Well said!!

Save it as a IGES (if you need wireframe) or parasolid (if you don't need wireframe) file and import back in to earlier version. You won't be able to save the toolpath anyhow.

Teh Bear that might work fine if I used tool holders that were flat on the bottom like you are showing. I have done this for years with 2d work.Problem is when you are down in a cavity at a 45 degree angle with a tapered holder 8 inches long that is 1.00 diameter at the top and .625 at the bottom your method will not work. I do work like this on a daily basis. Most of the time I just need to drive one surface with 2 to 4 check surfaces to get the job done. And all that is required for that is a standard parallel or flowline surface path. That is where I need the holder definition.

Legit X6 link is up on Mastercam's website!!

What about using the checkholder.dll in the chooks folder. Here you can choose the holder you are using from the holders library.

 

This will tell you if the tool and holder clears your surfaces... and if it doesnt you can modify the tool from within this chook.

Yes this C-hook does work but it only works well for single plane paths. Have tried it on Horizontal programs with multiple angles several times and have got burned. It only really looks at the stock in 2D. Best solution for the time being is David Colin's Holder utility

Yes the only solution at this time is to grin and bear it. I have been using a solution that David Colin came up with. Hopefully I can request him to update it for X6. I know that the new high speed paths will work but they take extra work to get them to work properly and they generate a lot more code. At our shop we do all aircraft work and a lot of it on 4 Axis. We have older machines with limited memory. I run in to a lot of instances were I am at an extreme angle trying to machine one simple surface that I can get with a simple flowline path were I need to run the shortest tool extension as possible and watch for holder clearance. This simple surface takes nothing but selecting the surface and manipulating the flowline control where with HST raster the surface has to have the correct containment exactly the right shape and a lot more parameters set. A 30 second toolpath now turns into a 30 minute toolpath which generates a lot of unnecessary code. Also a lot of the work, and I mean a lot, we do requires undercuts using custom lollipops, sidemillers and dovetails. Form what I know none of the HST paths support this type of cutting. And as far as drawing the holder as part of the tool I haven't had good luck. Especially doing undercuts. Mastercam looks at the holder as being actually part of the tool. I guess I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

Is that all you're looking for is some else to complain?

 

Is your concern legit? Yes it is

 

I don't believe that functionality can come until the Legacy paths are migrated to the new "tree" format.

I honestly don't know when that is scheduled to happen. I will admit, I am surprised myself that it has not as of yet.

I am looking for someone to complain??!! Isn't that how you get things fixed. You get enough concerned people complaining to CNC and maybe they might eventually do something about it. Isn't that what an enhancement request is? I have been told by my reseller and others from CNC that it would be in the last couple of releases. And JParis don't take this the wrong way. I love Mastercam. I have fought with our management to keep it. It's pretty hard though when almost all the competition has holders for all their toolpaths and they see me having to do the extra work to verify tool holder clearances.

Come On!!! You telling me that out of all the people that looked at this post no one has a complaint. I myself am tired of the standard surface toolpaths having the old style tab pages. They need to be treestyle like the rest with the ability to select a freaking toolholder. Every time I open one of the standard surface toolpaths operations it pops up in a different place on the screen. That is annoying as H#!!. I waste so much time having to verify toolholders that it's ridiculous. Well I guess I must be the only one still using the standard surface toolpaths. Anybody can speak up or forever hold your peace.