Are the Graphics Gonna be improved in X5?

[Dave.L]

I did not notice any comments in the top secret pdf that leaked out about improvements to the graphics.

 

Beta users: Have there been any improvements?

 

I switch from SolidWorks to MasterCAM to Esprit quite often and it pains my eyes to see the graphics in MC

[YoDoug®]

LOL, awaiting the inevitable "I get paid to make toolpaths not look at pretty pictures" from a Mastercam fanboi. It is absurd to me that Mastercam thinks that they have the same quality software as other companies when the graphics are so sub par.

[MotorCityMinion]

I hear ya. Chasing around that STUPID selection gnome gets pretty aggravating as well.

[Colin Gilchrist]

:hatersgonnahate.gif:

[Thad]

Dave,

 

I don't know what Solid Works or Esprit look like, but I hope you're not asking for the cartoon-ish Teletubbies look. I hate that.

 

Thad

[Thee Rickster ™]

I hope the verify graphics are improved dramatically.

[nhraguy]

+1 to Rickster, I couldn't agree more.

[K2csq7]

+2 Rickster, what good is verify if your finished surface looks like a staircase?

[Colin Gilchrist]

Keith,

 

Please explain? Have you changed the Tool and STL default tolerances? If not, your surface will look very rough. I usually set my tolerances to .002 for both the tool and STL. My surfaces look great.

[Bruce Caulley]

quote:

---

LOL, awaiting the inevitable "I get paid to make toolpaths not look at pretty pictures" from a Mastercam fanboi.

---

I was thinking the same thing.

 

Just because joan wanquer thinks it is a good idea, doesn't mean HOOPS is a bad idea. MC graphics are not only embarrassing, they are/were very hard to work with.

 

Bruce

[gcode]

Color me ignorant, but I don't have a problem with Mastercam graphics. They are not near the

quality of UG or SolidWorks, but they are more than adequate for the work I do.

Given a choice beteween SolidWork's beautiful graphics and dragging the Ops Manger to a second screen, I'll drag the Ops manager.

Improving the graphics cost money = higher maintenance payments. They either pay people to delevop them or license them from a third party

either way, it will cost more money.

Given a choice I'd rather see the effort going into toolpath development..

My customers , the guys who writes the checks, could care less what the graphics look like. All they care about is how the machines dance.. and how long I took to make it happen.. the rest is just fluff.

 

Could better graphics make me a better programmer?? Sure..but I still think the R&D money is better spent on toolpath develoment.

 

Now if you can figure out how to give me all that eyecandy for free

and let me keep my OPs Manager on the 2nd screen.. that's a whole different story

[Dave.L]

quote:

---

They are not near the

quality of UG or SolidWorks

---

That's for sure.

 

Tom, the point about the graphics is not to make a pretty picture. The poor graphics makes it difficult to see certain things which makes the software harder to use.

 

To each his own. For me, I could care less about dragging the OPS manager to another monitor since I have no desire to use 2. I would just prefer 1 big monitor over 2, but that's my opinion.

 

And, other software has better graphics and I don't see it costing more.

[Saultspics]

I just want verify to run a large file without a fatal error occurred warning.

[jeff]

I'm all for better graphics, but I'd much rather have a 64-bit executable first.

[MIL-TFP-41]

CNC Software should be embarrassed about their graphics quality. I was recently checking out a trade magazine that was showcasing all the stuff coming up at IMTS. It had nice screenshots of different CAM software. Mastercam even looks ugly with a screenshot. Friggin ONECNC has much better graphics than Mastercam. I recently fired up an old computer that had CadKey 98 installed on it....A 12 year old program looks better than what we work with.

 

quote:

---

And, other software has better graphics and I don't see it costing more.

---

That is sig worthy.....

[K2csq7]

Colin,

 

I have all of the graphics settings I know about on my computer and in mastercam(which probably isn't 1/2 of what's there) set to the preformance end of the spectrum away from quality, with everyone talking about graphics issues causing crashing and slowing us down, I dont mind zooming into a verify image and seeing a staircase, as long as the software keeps chugging along.

 

In reality gcode is absolutely correct. If my screen went back to atari 2600 graphics, I could care less as long as the toolpaths give me what I need, and make me say "wow that was cool" once in a while (Dynamic Mill the first time I got it to work).

 

I just always have a chuckle with my operators when I verify something for them and we zoom in to see all this jagged stuff.

 

I would probably miss that now that I think about it.

 

[gcode]

This guy had a really good blog on CAD stuff

He's been doing a comparison of 3D graphics

for a couple of weeks. Its worth some time to check it out

Deelip.com

[Thee Rickster ™]

I cut intricate molds.

All 3-d Geometry.

 

When I zoom in on flat surfs leading up to a rad

or wall, the em that finished the flat looks like

cuts way too deep.....always on every job.

(so I have no choice but to trust it)

 

I also use a lot of pencil and rest paths down to 1/32

ball cutters up to 5" deep cuts in graphite, that

I would really like to zoom into on and when I do

it look worse than just a 'staircase'.

 

Not to mention the way two path colors blend together

look like it cut way more into a blend

then I programmed it to.

 

Sometimes, believe it or not MC has tiny plunge gouges

and I cant tell on my 'scrap' work piece,

if the cutter didn't break, due to deflection,

if it were a 1/16, 5/61, 3/64, or 1/32 ball cutter

that gouged. Zoom in even a little bit in those

area on Verify, with the staircase and lack of resolution

from zooming, I can't find the gouge.

 

Does that clear things up?

[Thee Rickster ™]

I am pretty sure Verify is 3rd party part of MC's

software and the 3rd part has to make it better

for MC, so we may never see MC Verify improved dramatically.(please correct me if I am wrong)

[Thee Rickster ™]

Zoomed in on an 8" x 8" heat sink corner.

 

smallest cutter 1/32 ball waterline rest and a pencil.

 

Can you see the gouge and tell me which cutter

path or color did it?

.

.

If i was zooming in on a 30" x 30" part then it

become even harder to see whats doing what.

 

(there is no prize if you can find it)

 

[ 08-17-2010, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Rickster ]

[Dave.L]

OMG Rick, that's far worse than what I experience (I am only MILL L1 now)

[Thee Rickster ™]

Really?? I am assuming this is normal for all.

An this one of my better ones at highest quality.

 

Its worst when Verify errors on large files with

fine stepdowns and stepovers tells me to reduce

the quality.

[nhraguy]

Again +1 to the Rickster. My only graphic problem is with verify. I would rather see the problem in verify and not at the machine after I scrapped a part.

[KMartin]

Rickster

 

Have you ever tried to talk the owner into buying and EDM . From my experience 1/32 ballnose don't work to well .

 

MasterCam X4 MU3

Mill Level 3/Solids

Intel 5150 2.66GHz, 2.0 GB RAM

Windows XP Pro SP3

NVIDIA Quadro FX 3450

[Thee Rickster ™]

I don't think you can EDM graphite.

.

.

.

I cut molds out of graphite and we pour aluminum and zinc into them.(for 26 years now)

 

That's why I can use such small long cutters. (I know the top secret feeds and speeds for

for them)