I had this happen to me once in the past. I know that there are some .ini files that you can delete that Mastercam will recreate when it starts back up. Sometimes this fixes a lot of problems in Verify. I don't remember off the top of my head which ones they were but I will see if I can dig thru some of my notes and find out what it was. Maybe someone else will jump in here that remembers.

Not a problem. Glad to help. You're welcome

I am not justifying that the new Verify is perfect by any means but it it is a step in the right direction. The part I am working on now is 96.00 long by 46.00 wide by 3.00 thick and so far I have 471 operations. If I was using X6 I would never be able to verify this part without breaking it up into sections. The old Verify had a limitation of accuracy once you surpassed 70.00.

And to answer why accurate zoom chopped up you block is that it takes just that view that you are in and focuses all the PC's horsepower on just that area. It doesn't really work well with full part view. But it does make a significant difference when focused on a smaller area.

If you are using the default MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml the Precision factor is set at 1 and the Precision slider is set at 5. Leaving the Precision Factor at 1 and moving the Precision Slider (which is at the bottom left of the window) all the way to the right will max a big difference. If that is not clear enough you will need to change your Precision Factor. Go to C:\Users\your name\Documents\my mcamx7. That is where you will find MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml. Copy it and rename it to something else like "Normal Size Parts PF2 PI8.xml" Then find <PrecisionFactor>1</PrecisionFactor> and increase that value. This is what makes the most difference. Then you can change <PrecisionIndex>5</PrecisionIndex>. That will change the default position of the precision slider. So now when you run Verify you can select the new file you created and see if that makes a difference. I have several different defaults for the different types of jobs I am working on.

CamMan1, 1-1.5 is nowhere near good enough resolution. Bottom line, I really need Verify and now it's pretty much useless to me.

 

Slick, I have all the same issues as you...that’s what lead to my original post.

 

The attached jpg shows toolpath of a .020 dia end mill cutting .100 wide waveguides with .012 radii in the corners. Wireframe of features shown...cuts show gouges, bulges, mismatch. Looks the same with a Defaults setting of 4...just takes exponentially longer to simulate.

 

In my opinion...dump all the eye candy and just make it work!

Trust me I know exactly where you are coming from. When X7 was released I was VERY vocal about the same issues that you are having. I actually stirred up a hornets nest over the issues that you are having. I basically learned to change my verification habits from X6. When I need an accurate model comparison I accurate zoom a small area and then compare that area and move around the part zooming, compare, unzoom, move, zoom, compare etc. I learned to live with the trade off that I now can Verify extremely large and complicated parts that I could not in X6.

For parts that small you should have your precision factor set at 1 or 1.5 and the precision slider between 5 and max. At that if the resolution if it is still grainy hit accurate zoom an it should be much faster at those settings.

Sometimes you have to click and hold for a few seconds on the tool before you drag it over. I have this happen frequently especially when dragging from one window session to another.

Started in v3.0 in MSDOS. No drafting in Mastercam. If you screwed up you started over or pieced together the NCI file. No REGEN or little red "X". First Computer 386SX, math coprocessor,

80 Megabyte HD and 4megs of sims. 14" svga "color monitor". 640 x 480 resolution. $3,000.00. You became an ""expert editing the NCI files back then.""

Wasn't that loads of fun. Things have really changed since then haven't they. You have me beat. I think I started with V3.41 or something like that.

Mastercam x7 tool manager. When choosing tools in tool selection,

Is it possible to select the default setting for the filter and display mode. So whether it should stand for "tools or assemblies or Both"?????????????

It will make me happy with a solution.

 

Greetings Leif

I agree that would be nice to have. Every time I go to select a tool from the tool library it defaults to both. It would be nice to to be able to set it to default to either tools or assemblies.

I have seen on smaller parts that with the Precision Factor turned up it will slow way down. Try it at 1 and see if that helps. Also linearization of entry helix's will slow it down too. Use create 3D arcs. The broad range in parts we do I have a dozen or so XML files for the different size parts.

Was there even an ops manager, I don't remember anything being on the screen? My memory's getting a little fuzzy on things from the mid 90's

There was an NCI editor page. OH the horror!

In the Operations manager?

There was no Operation Manager back then. Not until V7.

You could also load a tool as an assembly, if you built the assembly in Tool Manager.

That is what I do now that I have built up my libraries.

Just create a contour and select the tool that you were using for flowline and apply a holder to that tool. Now you have a holder associated with that tool. Then just delete the contour or ghost it to use again for future holder applications. And djstedman is correct it will display properly in verify and backplot.

Actually you have minus .050 on those channels but that was probably you trying to overemphasize the cut to see it in verify. Make sure you are running the 5-axis engine 1st it will give a much better quality. Then accurate zoom that area and then compare. It should be much better. You might want to turn on collision checking also.

Change stepdown to less then floor depth. That should fix it.

It is in the collision detection that makes the difference with the tool shank. It takes more calculation to consider the difference in shank diameter.

It looks like one is running 5-axis engine and the other is running 3-axis engine. Check settings under file, options. Just a guess.

I personally use the STL's now that they improved the triangle count so that the files are not so large. I was using the Stock Model but for me it is much faster to use the STL's. A lot of the work I do is all surfacing and it takes too long for Stock Model to gen. Most of the parts we do are 100" long x 40" wide or larger. For me it is faster to use the STL's especially if I have to go back and make a change on a large toolpath, then I have to wait for a long time for Stock Model to regen. If you need to have real good clarity and accuracy though stick with the Stock Model.

CamMan problem is they put a date out there and miss it then certain people like to get the pitch forks and such for someones head. They are working on it and when it is done and they feel they have achieved what they are after then it will be out until then they are aware of your issue which is addressed in that release.

Thanks for the insight.

Guess they are not touching that question with a 100 ft pole.

Is there a rough release date window for X7MU2? It would be nice to know so I could schedule update time between my projects.

You only have to tell it to "change side" when it is a single chain. I mirror parts everyday due to the fact that aircraft have left and right of just about everything. You just have to remember to hold down the shift key when selecting multiple chains and you have to keep it held down when you tell it to "reverse chain".

If you have multiple chains in an operation you can select each one by holding down the shift key and tell it "reverse" and it will do all without having to "change sides".