[neurosis]

I can show you several examples of this including using morph (which is a horribly inefficient tool path to begin with).

Granted, its been a while since ive had to use this function at all since we now have much better roughing paths to work with.

This was always a pet peeve of mine in versions of MC prior to X4 (x3 actually which I refused to use). Too much geometry creation to get efficient tool path that would actually work without destroying cutters. Now obviously this depends on your machining technique and how you choose to remove material but I do not like to change my machining techniques to suite the system. It should be the other way around yes?

I can give you several examples of this if you would like to see them. If your diameter or feature is close to the same size as your stock then it never becomes an issue BUT of you have a feature or features that are inside of your stock boundary that have distances from your stock edge greater than your cutter diameter, it will channel to location and then work its way around to remove the material. This includes the morph pocketing path.

[durgam605]

I agree about not having to Tailor your likes to the system. All of them should have the ability to adapt to your needs.

With that said, I have had some time to play with the feature. I constructed 2 rectangles, and a circle, all inside a larger rectangle. And found the morph toolpath, generated a LOT of redundant cuts. Most were re cuts of very little stepover. The parrallel Spiral and constant stepover were the least amount of code and redundancy. While its not Ideal, but still a really good option when avoiding creating extra geometry.

Thanks for all the help in the matter. much appreciated.