Computation Error

[Dylan Bender]

We have been getting the computation error quite frequently.  It usually is between a Optirough and Optirest operation.  Sometimes just changing one parameter will correct this and then the next time using the same parameter it won't.  Any information would be helpful and appreciated.

[JParis]

It may not be easy to know if all are from the same cause....

One place I do see this kind of error is when a constraining boundary is used for keep a tool in and the walls are the driving surface...sometimes moving that boundary by offsetting as little as .001" can calculate a path..

Another place I see this is in depth settings....if the settings of your depth don't allow cuts at those Z depths it can happen..

There can be multiple scenarios and different solutions based on the exact reason of each cuts giving the problem. 

[BILL HUNTER]

On 9/9/2020 at 3:07 PM, Dylan Bender said:

We have been getting the computation error quite frequently.  It usually is between a Optirough and Optirest operation.  Sometimes just changing one parameter will correct this and then the next time using the same parameter it won't.  Any information would be helpful and appreciated.

I have also seen this many times in the dynamic paths. The last time was a problem with mastercam accepting the depth of cut. If I made the depth of cut too shallow I would get an alarm. I was not using the min/max depth cuts so there was no reason for it. I ended up creating a new path from scratch using the original values for everything and it worked fine. I use 2020 and have had many issues with toolpath file corruption.

[JParis]

Just now, BILL HUNTER said:

I use 2020 and have had many issues with toolpath file corruption.

and have you been in contact with CNC because they are trying to get in contact with you

[BILL HUNTER]

4 minutes ago, JParis said:

and have you been in contact with CNC because they are trying to get in contact with you

What is funny about that is it took them months before they "tried to contact me" after sending them the file. After sending the file it took me about an hour to get that problem resolved. I guess you do not hear anything from Mastercam until you go public. THIS is why you must be a paying customer before you log into the www.mastercam.com forum. They do not want potential customers to read all of the bug issues.

[crazy^millman]

10 minutes ago, BILL HUNTER said:

What is funny about that is it took them months before they "tried to contact me" after sending them the file. After sending the file it took me about an hour to get that problem resolved. I guess you do not hear anything from Mastercam until you go public. THIS is why you must be a paying customer before you log into the www.mastercam.com forum. They do not want potential customers to read all of the bug issues.

So in other words you got your problem resolved good to hear.

Always two sides to every story sir. Have a good day.

[Chally72]

11 minutes ago, BILL HUNTER said:

I guess you do not hear anything from Mastercam until you go public.

Bill, I'm just a guy who reads this forum and tries to help out in my spare time if I see someone having a problem. I am not tech support or QC.  

The official Mastercam forums get read by the actual developers and product owners of the software. As far as bug issues, I daresay there's more posted here about bugs or potential bugs than anywhere else on the web, by volume. This is a big group of users with a diverse set of circumstances, and I find it to be a valuable source of information on how to deal with scenarios I could never even dream of on my own, which is why I frequent it. 

I understand the need to let off steam occasionally. On the flip side, we/I can't help with something we never receive. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you require help in the future.

[BILL HUNTER]

51 minutes ago, Chally72 said:

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you require help in the future.

Perhaps your vendors should have that same attitude.

[JHyder2]

18 hours ago, BILL HUNTER said:

Perhaps your vendors should have that same attitude.

Ah yes pastor Bill, preach to us about positive attitudes.

On 9/9/2020 at 2:07 PM, Dylan Bender said:

We have been getting the computation error quite frequently.  It usually is between a Optirough and Optirest operation.  Sometimes just changing one parameter will correct this and then the next time using the same parameter it won't.  Any information would be helpful and appreciated.

Computation errors often occur when user inputs are conflicting in my experience.  You have a parameter limiting/preventing another from doing what it intends to do.  Could be anything from drive/avoidance geometry, cut depths, depth limits, tool geometry, etc., or some combination.  This is often the case in legacy paths such as high-speed pencil and flowline at least.

[crazy^millman]

19 hours ago, BILL HUNTER said:

Perhaps your vendors should have that same attitude.

That only has to work one way in your case huh?

I was part of Verisurf and I asked one of the developers what were the possible errors in one module of the software that a user could create. He ran his algorithm and he said it would be over 1,000,000 possible errors. I asked him long does it take to code each error and test them? He said 3-5 minutes. I broke out the trusty calculator and came up with 4,500,000 minutes as a medium amount of time for the one module of man power time needed to give a specific error for that mistake the user had made. I then figured that was 75,000 hours of man power needed and we had 5 modules at the time. I just stuck with the most used one and said okay we only need to hire 38 more developers to add all the error checking to stop 5% of users who are complaining about the error statements are too vague. I figured the software would need to triple in cost, but we would make the 5% of users happy. For some reason that didn't go over well when I started going back to those users and telling them the software was going to be 3 times the cost and they would get specific errors for every possible way they could make a mistake. They wanted to know was there a better way? I said yes accept the generic error and figure out what you did wrong. Every single one of them were happy to deal with it and leave the pricing alone. They all thought it was crazy how the world was coming to an end because there was a generic error statement and not a specific one like you hit the accept button 2 times on the 3rd selection dialog box when you should have only hit the accept button only one time.

Again always 2 sides to every story and when we only see if from our desk and not from the other side of the screen we don't care. Tons of hard work and effort going to making software. I have my share of complaints and issues, but I have a job to do and at the end of the day it is to make programs. Mastercam is the tool I have chosen to make that happen. For those who feel it was thrown at them and it sucks I am sorry, but there is not a CNC Machine on the planet I cannot make a program for using Mastercam given the right time. Problem is a lot of managers think what we do is like popping popcorn. Throw it in the microwave and 2 minutes later you got a CNC program that is 80 million lines of code for 26 individual machining operations using almost a 100 different tools taking 4,200 lbs of metal and turning it into 880lbs with thin walls and crazy hard to reach features with unacceptable tolerances with the same ignorance.

[BILL HUNTER]

On 9/16/2020 at 10:58 AM, crazy^millman said:

That only has to work one way in your case huh?

I was part of Verisurf and I asked one of the developers what were the possible errors in one module of the software that a user could create. He ran his algorithm and he said it would be over 1,000,000 possible errors. I asked him long does it take to code each error and test them? He said 3-5 minutes. I broke out the trusty calculator and came up with 4,500,000 minutes as a medium amount of time for the one module of man power time needed to give a specific error for that mistake the user had made. I then figured that was 75,000 hours of man power needed and we had 5 modules at the time. I just stuck with the most used one and said okay we only need to hire 38 more developers to add all the error checking to stop 5% of users who are complaining about the error statements are too vague. I figured the software would need to triple in cost, but we would make the 5% of users happy. For some reason that didn't go over well when I started going back to those users and telling them the software was going to be 3 times the cost and they would get specific errors for every possible way they could make a mistake. They wanted to know was there a better way? I said yes accept the generic error and figure out what you did wrong. Every single one of them were happy to deal with it and leave the pricing alone. They all thought it was crazy how the world was coming to an end because there was a generic error statement and not a specific one like you hit the accept button 2 times on the 3rd selection dialog box when you should have only hit the accept button only one time.

Again always 2 sides to every story and when we only see if from our desk and not from the other side of the screen we don't care. Tons of hard work and effort going to making software. I have my share of complaints and issues, but I have a job to do and at the end of the day it is to make programs. Mastercam is the tool I have chosen to make that happen. For those who feel it was thrown at them and it sucks I am sorry, but there is not a CNC Machine on the planet I cannot make a program for using Mastercam given the right time. Problem is a lot of managers think what we do is like popping popcorn. Throw it in the microwave and 2 minutes later you got a CNC program that is 80 million lines of code for 26 individual machining operations using almost a 100 different tools taking 4,200 lbs of metal and turning it into 880lbs with thin walls and crazy hard to reach features with unacceptable tolerances with the same ignorance.

Couldn't you just sum that up by telling us that you remember when candy bars were a nickel?  Last thing I have time for is reading through all of that over bloated BS. Not all of us are sitting at home waiting for Shelley Luther to fight for us to get back to work.  

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a message for the most common error types like "No cut zone found."

[crazy^millman]

55 minutes ago, Matthew Hajicek - Conventus said:

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a message for the most common error types like "No cut zone found."

I agree and why I send emails to QC all the time with suggestions and ideas.

[mackenzieruiter]

I randomly will get it when making a large Waterline path. Again, like everyone else, it usually has to do with an incorrect depth set, drive surfaces not being in a valid machining region, or a containment that is just odd/funky. 

Haven't noticed a *real* root cause.

[pullo]

I got a computational error in dynamic today (my first ever in  dynamic). I resolved it by converting the solid to surfs .

Gracjan