maybe not a full "MR" is due...but to fix some of the very annoying bugs would be nice. Stock to leave not sticking unless you hit the blue + sign, lead in/out not updating till you exit the parameter dialog and then re-enter...the little annoying pain in the xxxx things. Sure we all got "workarounds"...but I hate that expression. I don't get to use "workarounds" when I mess up a part, and I hope that CNC Software works to those same standards....on their dime, not mine. Quit fixing bugs with Maintenance Releases (which is really the area of "increased functionality" that came with MR1)...oh wait...I forgot bout shading stock. Bug fixes should be done on CNC Software's dime, not mine. I am all for increased functionality, but I am more for getting rid of these little "workarounds" that we all use. At least with the initial release of X, there were a few SP. I don't think we have seen a SP since X2MR2(2 generations ago...wow)...and don't tell me that is because there have been no bugs. If they insist on tieing the bug fixes to the MR's, at least do it like they did with X1 MR1/SP2. If you had maintenance you got the new toys, and if you weren't you got a more stable system. [/rant]

quote: yes, front in SW is top in MC[off topic] I think this warrants further discussion. I am not sure which is wrong (or right) Mastercam or Solidworks. Seems to me that "top" should be "top", no matter the CAD system. I do know that from the days I was using CadKey, Top = top in both systems. Recently I modeled a aircraft part in Solidworks using "Aircraft Coordinates". When it was compared to a UG model supplied by the vendor (another long story, our contract specified that we had to provide a solid model, even tho one already existed....this was a part for the A-10, originally made via old school blueprints and loft data), it was correct, but on the other side of the airplane. Either way...this is something that has bothered me in the past....Solidworks Top = Mastercams Front = UG left side. [/off topic] Also...must kick in my kudo's for gcode's tip. Pretty cool.

hmmm...that is exactly how I have my post setup to do it. coolant$ = 3 means thru spindle coolant (using v9 coolant) I use it alot for doing things like setting switches for doing an air purge, dwelling before cutting with CTS, turning on CTS before the spindle, ect.

Right after your post turns on the coolant, you can put something like this... code: pbld, n$, "G43", *tlngno$, pfzout, scoolant, e$ if coolant$ = 3, pbld, n$, "G4 X5.", e$ ##add this line

I think the rapid moves in the video were for show. Sure it looks cool, yet I don't see a time advantage over rapiding to a safe z height then repositioning the x,y,a & c axis.

quote: I think leadin/lead out changes will stick if you hit the Blue Cross before exiting the leadin/out pageThey stick, but they don't update to the right numbers until you hit the green check mark and then go back into the operation.

Ok, lets say you have 5 or 6 tools...all different diameters. First tool is a 3" facemill. You go through and do a contour with it, using 65% as your entry/exit distance. Now on the nest operation, you profile with a 1/2 endmill. when you go to the lead in/out page, it still gives the value (1.95") for the 3" facemill. In order for it to show correctly(.325"), you have to hit the green check mark, then go back into the operation parameters to see it updated. This is very very annoying to say the least. Another one is stock to leave. If I just go to the next dialog page after I change my stock to leave without hitting the "apply" button it often goes back to whatever value was in there before. Seems to me that X4 MU1 eliminated a few things but brought in many more. Thanks CNC, sure am glad I paid for the "maintenance". I have replaced 2 video cards because of the verify issue and have 4 guys constantly asking me why things are messed up.

One thing to note if you are into this kind of stuff...I don't believe that AMD/ATI has gone the route of totally disabling their Radeon cards from being a "FireGL" card...or if they have, it has been only recently...vs Nvidia who eliminated the possibility at least 3 generations ago. then again...alot of old school users believe that ATI + Mastercam = No good. My personal testing has proved them wrong....then again, different hardware, different OS, different way of installing = different results

I have run benchmarks from viewperf using a real FX4000 vs the 6800GS. Without the nvstrap the FX stomped the 6800. With...the 6800 was within 5% of the FX4000. At the time I got the cards the 6800 was something like $120 and the FX4000 was over $1000. As far as I know...the 6800 series was the last you were able to do this. Nvidia started laser cutting the extra pipelines out starting with the 7000 series. Sad...because they use the exact same GPU... A Quadro FX5600 uses the same GPU as the 8800 series cards. http://www.gpureview.com/nvidia-g80-chip-130.html

Ran into this today on one of our seats (out of 5). Tried everything mentioned above..nothing helped. Wound up swapping the video card for a Quadro4 900 XGL (the thing was ancient anyways) to a GeForce6800 GS...which, BTW, using rivatuner will run as a QuadroFX4000 So, that was my fix...changing the vid card.

1- sync codes 2- machine simulation...even something simple like being able to backplot an upper & lower turret cutting simultaneously..."pinch turn" 3- improved stock transfer 4- fix the canned stuff already 5- Too many items to list... [rant] Tool insspection is nice and all...but you could easily do this in the past with 2 different grooving operations. "Stock shade" does not impress me much...either does finally being able to verify with a round boring bar. CNC Software should go buy a seat of Esprit...take a few classes & reverse engineer what they got. As it is...the only thing Mastercam is adequate at in lathe is single turret/single spindle machines. [/rant]

I gotta say that now that I have a lot more seat time with X4....I am in full agreement with the fact that this new trim sucks balls. I like the idea of it, however its a crap shoot when you are trying to trim 2 entities. Seems like they tried to copy solidworks trim preview and failed. Don't waste time programming in a switch....just get rid of the thing & concentrate on other areas that need work. JM2C

The 840di's are very close to the fanuc...with a few exceptions....equal being one of them. YN_[521]=$AA_IM[Z]*1 should be YN_[521]==$AA_IM[Z]*1 (note the double equal sign) Unless you are doing math...then your statements look a little more conventional...something like this.. YN_[526] =YN_[526]+1

Recently had a talk with a Shunk guy bout the tribos system. He said since it is only a 3 point contact system, it is best used for light cuts...finish work. Personally, I would be checking out Rego-Fix Powergrip system. Easy to balance, more holding power than heat shrink. The extended tough to reach holders....whatever your preference of heat shrink stuff. If I had my choice of "ultimate" options, I would be looking at a Capto or a Nikken NC5 spindle. As it is tho...Either a "Big Plus" or HSK spindle will do just fine.

Hopefully Verisurf does not catch on to this....but I have the "utilities" free package from verisurf installed (mainly due to the holeaxis utility) and the moldplus Catia converter. I get all the GD&T stuff shown up on my screen because the verisurf package recognizes it. Very slick stuff....1000X better than the solidworks converter ( I believe it was Featureworks) we tried out a while back. I have tried both the Moldplus converter & Mastercam's converter....there is no comparason when it comes to displaying the GD&T stuff.

quote: I ran this part through volumill. It did a much better job of keeping the tool from over engaging. It bounced around the part so much and made so many retracts that I dont think that the path is efficient enough to justify.I am trying the 15 day trial...and found the same thing. No over engaging, but WAY too many rapid moves. note...the part that is on the ftp is a rough model of what we are actually making. The real thing has alot of pockets also. The Volumill pocket toolpath looks good....but then so does the dynamic toolpath.

I finally went to an 8% stepover with optimize deselected....seems to be doing better. Thanks for the input!

yup...sometimes the tool would make it through the area ...but break when it got to the next cut.

I have uploaded a file to the FTP in the mcx4 files folder named "Dynamic overengage.mcx". The material is 304L stainless....we were getting very good MMR (4000 rpm, 120 ipm, 15% stepover) till the program started to clean up around the bosses. I have highlighted the problem areas with red boxes. You could hear and see that the tool was cutting WAY too much...in some cases it looks like it is engaging 50% of the tool. Needless to say we have a few tools that are now in multiple pieces. Am I missing a setting to not allow for this to happen? The tool was cutting very nicely till it came across the problem around the bosses Any suggestions? I am looking into the volumill free trial to see how they are addressing areas like this....

quote: That tool does not look too free cutting.A balanced version of that tool hold my personal record for MMR. 2 1/2 dia @ 20,000 rpm, 640 IPM, .15 DOC. The spindle was pegged at 125%....I tried the same cut with a Mitsubishi ASX (whatever their fast alum cutter is) and was only able to get to 350~400IPM before the spindle maxed out.

quote: Just out of curiosity's sake, why don't you like it?I ask the same thing also....while it does need some refinement...I like it

quote: Only thing tat really seems to cause a crashing issue for me is using dynamic transform. Other than that, its solid. Ditto here. Sometimes I have other issues...like earlier today I was trying to project a line onto a solid...kept telling me there was no intersection found. I saved the file & restarted mastercam...and without changing anything(view, WCS, ect) the line projected just fine.

The machine def DOES get tied in with the MCX file. So if you changed this setting on a newer version, and you pull up an old file, it will show the warning. If you replace your mach. def with your newer one, it should go away.

Nope...not a bug. Me being 1/2 asleep. I had the point picked at the origin...not at Z+6.386. My bad...thanks for looking tho.

I believe something is up here. On the linking parameters page, I have it set to incremental. However, it is acting like it is absolute. If I switch to absolute, I get the exact same code that I do when in incremental. Anyone else finding this? It is an external thread. I uploaded a small sample file on the FTP. It is in the X4_Files named threadmill.mcx.