MC2026 Level manager

[Jeff]

Just a different perspective....might you have a workflow problem instead?

I don't think that's it.
We have Okuma mills, a newer Hyundai-Wia Fanuc, a Brother and an older Hyundai-Kia that is used for messy, nasty crap like Phenolic.
Given the fact that we're a job shop and I don't know who will be running what 3 days from now I have to post out for both machines. It makes it easier on both me and the operators.
I'd say about 85% of the work is posted for both machines. The larger stuff is only posted for the Hyundai.

[MIL-TFP-41]

Back on 2026...anyone else notice how fucked up the 5 axis drilling is? Particularly when opening an earlier version file? Half the time vectors will be reversed. I have a file that has 336 holes, on about 38 different orientations. I used to be able to windows select the geometry and I was done. All 2026 does is hang. I had to make 38 different planes and 38 different operations to "update" this file. Yes it has been submitted, crickets has been the response.

Got word back from Mastercam on this.
So the "fix" on this bug will be addressed in January when update 2 rolls out. Till then you are fucked.
Paraphrasing their response, but that is the gist of it.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

I'd like to take this opportunity to take a dump on the 2026 "Mill Assembly Designer" panel system for making tools. I feel like, today, it was designed specifically to make my afternoon feel very long and unfortunate.

What is the point of taking a system that used to live in a single dialog box, and make it harvest the entire main monitor? Why does it take 30 sec to rename a tool and change the flute count? What was the overall purpose of changing an extremely functional, and practical element that needed no improvement? I have never had issues creating a tool (except when I forget to delete the small dupe geo in Harvey .dxf's), and I can't see that people's issues with more advanced tools are now magically fixed after overhauling the interface.

I don't like it. But I'm going to use it, because I have to stop using 2024 someday. So I am taking the time to complain.

[neurosis]

I don't like it. But I'm going to use it,

I opened a file in 2026 the other day. Went to create a tool, and closed it immediately and went back to 2025.  

I'm sure the migration is inevitable, but so far, I don't care for quite a few of the changes. Mostly because I'm not used to them.

I haven't used it enough to see if I'd be affected by any bugs.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Thankfully I've never been subjected to any real bugs, but I agree, not being used to the layouts on these new panels has got me feeling slow and stumbly.

Curious to hear if anyone is just breezing through after adjusting? It's frustrating for a software you're good at to suddenly change so much. I know this is the first time I've run into this kind of swap (I'm a post-ribbon learner and a fan of the MGS panel), and a lot of you guys are grizzled and numbed to the extent that we can get pushed around. My $0.02 is that creating or modifying a tool should be one of the fastest and easiest parts of our day - not a bespoke/indulgent UI experience.

[Jeff]

What was the overall purpose of changing an extremely functional, and practical element that needed no improvement?

1) to make things prettier
2) to say they made changes in order to justify another year of us paying maintenance
3) to attract new users who don't know any better

Most of the changes have done nothing to make our jobs more efficient, instead they add more clicks and useless animations to things like the MGS dumpster fire.

[jstell]

Most of the changes have done nothing to make our jobs more efficient, instead they add more clicks and useless animations to things like the MGS dumpster fire.

This. ^^^^
Always with the more clicks and lost functionality.  Like the new levels and planes not having column headers.  You can't re-arrange them, and in order to change the sort-by column or order, you now have to click in a drop-down menu instead of just clicking the column header.  Yeah for groups, but the rest of UI changes are a dis-improvement.

Don't even get me started on MGS - I still drive 2022 daily to avoid this nonsense.

[MIL-TFP-41]

I opened a file in 2026 the other day. Went to create a tool, and closed it immediately and went back to 2025.  

Pretty sure I already called that a hunk of shit too. Oh, yea, naming a tool before you create it is fucking brilliant.  One of my biggest gripes about the tool creation, is once you do have it created, if you need to go back into the tool and edit it, there is a noticeable lag for when it loads up a solid model of the tool/holder assembly.

We are now all in on 2026. I figure its rip the band-aid off now or later kind of deal. Eventually we gotta get used to it.

Why the mothership feels the need to update shit that was updated a couple of years ago, yet still insists on using 25+ year old V8 dialog boxes in lathe is one I would like to get an explanation on.

[G-Jorg]

I'd like to take this opportunity to take a dump on the 2026 "Mill Assembly Designer" panel system for making tools. I feel like, today, it was designed specifically to make my afternoon feel very long and unfortunate.

What is the point of taking a system that used to live in a single dialog box, and make it harvest the entire main monitor? Why does it take 30 sec to rename a tool and change the flute count? What was the overall purpose of changing an extremely functional, and practical element that needed no improvement? I have never had issues creating a tool (except when I forget to delete the small dupe geo in Harvey .dxf's), and I can't see that people's issues with more advanced tools are now magically fixed after overhauling the interface.

I don't like it. But I'm going to use it, because I have to stop using 2024 someday. So I am taking the time to complain.

I created an account here because of this post. I'm on the other two forums as well.

I have been using 26 since it was released. The levels manager I'm getting use to. As for creating a tool in 26 has drastically slowed my workflow. When it opens, my brain is like "Ok, now WTF do I do?"

Why do tool assemblies also have a tool and diameter offset #? Genuinely curious.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

One of my biggest gripes about the tool creation, is once you do have it created, if you need to go back into the tool and edit it, there is a noticeable lag for when it loads up a solid model of the tool/holder assembly.

How about modifying a tool, and clicking the green check mark, but you forgot to change the name. And now you're at the assembly stage, and you can't go back to the tool. So you have to green check, open the tool again (and wait), and make the change and green checkmark 2 more times.

I can't imagine the lag on this bad boy when you have a large file open, and the whole screen needs to change multiple times simply to change a tool number, or name.

[CNCAppsJames]

@SuperHoneyBadger when I need to edit name and such of a tool/assembly, I right click on the tool in the tool manager and click edit assembly. In there you can edit many characteristics of the assembly and tool. Not everything but I find it produces better outcomes than editing the assembly in the operation. 

HTH

[JakeL]

Two things before writing this post 1. I have zero seat time with MC26 (we usually update in January) 2. None of this is fact, just things / opinions I've gathered over the past couple years.

It seems to me like the interface changes are long term commitments. I believe I read somewhere a while back that the MFC dialogs were bottlenecking functionality in the backend code. Because of this, they are moving most (if not all) dialogs to the side panel to use a different (more capable) UI backend.

This seems pretty obvious when you think about it.
- MGS gained simulation functionality when moved to the side panel, and I'm almost positive I've read that there is future plans for MGS.

- The levels and planes managers... how long have people been asking for groups? 10-15 years? Maybe I'm wrong, but if the old UI backend didn't have the ability to support groups then starting from scratch is the only option there, and when completely redesigning such a main piece of the software there is going to be kinks to work out when it goes live.

- As for MC26 tool creation, how long have people asked for the ability to define tools from NOT the tip of the tool? Or the ability to model a nut on a slitting saw? My guess is the end goal is to add this functionality and the new tool creation is an attempt to lay a foundation.

[Jeff]

and when completely redesigning such a main piece of the software there is going to be kinks to work out when it goes live.

There was no need to change what worked, they can redesign it to add groups and keep the stuff that has worked forever.
But instead they thought it was a great idea to remove things, move them around and make it pretty.

Due to the extra clicks and slowing down my workflow, 2026 is a waste of my time and company money. So was 2024, so I skipped both versions.

[SuperHoneyBadger]

My overarching issue is the use of multi-function panels.

In my toolkit, multitools are garbage. I use a precise utensil for a purpose, and it is usually crap for other stuff. It was baked into my lizard brain by an old-school craftsman early in my life, and it has held true in many facets.

If we are heading in a direction where the same 1/4 of the screen is used for EVERYTHING. Toolpath tree(when will that become a hideous goblin of a multipanel?), tool manager, tool creation, MGS... It won't stop, and where is the visual/spatial anchoring zone for anything in the software? Where is 0,0,0 when locations, colours schemes, buttons and queues constantly change? To be frank, there is none. And having nowhere to anchor the session leads to it feeling scattered, unorganized and flimsy.

I'd much rather have 3 dialogues floating around than be 7 layers deep in a multipanel any day.

[kdg]

I'd much rather have 3 dialogues floating around than be 7 layers deep in a multipanel any day.

Perhaps we're reverting to "done, done, done, ..., do it".