TERRYH

2022 Not impressed

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, gcode said:

sharles,, any chance you have auto save enabled?

I have found that massive files and an autosave do not play well together

Autosave is trying to write a copy of the file... your are still working, making changes to the file  and bad things happen.

I've run 700 meg files in 2022 with zero issue, but we have a very fast network and I never use autosave

I'd also look at memory allocation is system config

Hey Gcode,

no I never run auto save because of the size of my files. I have a super fast computer. Not sure about our network, though.

I'm really NOT a mastercam hater. When it works right, I absolutely love it, but the problem is, it's so hit and miss and since X came out, it seems like we've only been able to move up every other or every third release. X6 was great. Then X9, I loved it. We stayed in that until we did all the massive customization work I shared on this forum back in the spring of 2020 and moved in 2019 with our customized tool holders, tools, simulation models and such. CNC Software, our reseller, FASTech, and guys here on this forum all helped us move into some cutting edge stuff when we moved into 2019. So, again, I'm really not a hater, but I just don't have time for the glitches and workarounds or worse, when it actually screws stuff up and then I have to tell the guys on the floor, "Good luck, keep an eye on it..." We are trying to move away from so much direct involvement with the guys on the floor since we did all the simulation customization so we can verify/simulate EVERYTHING here in Mastercam...but right now in 2022, I don't feel safe with the guys on the floor walking away from our programs...

 

Terry and I work in a prototype/one-off shop. We only get one chance to get it right, so for us, saving 10 seconds per piece on the floor with some fancy new toolpathing operation is worthless. We need mastercam to do it correctly, NOT do it fast... Maybe Terry and I were wrong when we fought our owners to stay with Mastercam instead of moving to a more mold oriented software, like when they brought in Tebis and paid them a ton of money to show us what they could do for us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mwearne said:

Are you testing in a toolpath or just general selection? 

I find it will not stick if you are toolpathing. General selection, works fine. I can't be bothered to send it to QC, I'm already emailing them too much. 

 

18 hours ago, neurosis said:

I'm finding the same thing.

I did this a while back and didn't bother to post about it because I figured everyone understood what he was doing.   I guess I should have chimed in. 

 

To add an example for clarity - if you create a few separate lines of text (or what ever), create a contour path like you're going to engrave. Set the selection to in + then select geometry. When you go to create a second contour the setting reverts back to std window.  

Ahh, no I see what you guys are talking about, I don't use Mastercams toolpath selection so I missed it.

 

2 hours ago, TERRYH said:

Just out of curiosity what types of work are people doing and using 2022 on that seem to not be finding the issues we are, are you doing production type work or tool and die type stuff. We do several different types of molds, trim dies, form dies and assembly and check fixtures. just wondering if we are seeing different issues because of how and what we do compared to others. 

Mostly one off's these says, so I make a lot of new programs.

My entire workflow of programming to gcode is less than a minute for 95% of parts that I do, which could include surfacing , pockets, contours, drilled holes & counterbores/countersinks.

I had reached the same level of automation prior to quitting my aerospace job, we went from 10 programmers to 4 over the course of a year.  I would suggest reaching out to a c-hook dealer and having mods created to address the issues you have with efficiency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I had reached the same level of automation prior to quitting my aerospace job, we went from 10 programmers to 4 over the course of a year.  I would suggest reaching out to a c-hook dealer and having mods created to address the issues you have with efficiency.

Can c-hooks check tool lengths and holder and machine clearance? If not, they'd only be helpful for our flat, 2-d work like plates and similar stuff. I just completed 10 punches. Took me 32 hours. I tried to use the same tools for the bottom ops, but the list grew to 14 as some were deep.

Then on the top ops, my list grew to 22 tools/holders because, again, deep punches, tight clearances, and such. Some were a little over 2" tall, others over 7", and all in A2 steel. Tool/holder lengths are very different for the short ones versus the taller ones. Perhaps, I'm ignorant, but I just don't think automization has gotten that good...or am I wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sharles said:

Can c-hooks check tool lengths and holder and machine clearance? If not, they'd only be helpful for our flat, 2-d work like plates and similar stuff. I just completed 10 punches. Took me 32 hours. I tried to use the same tools for the bottom ops, but the list grew to 14 as some were deep.

Then on the top ops, my list grew to 22 tools/holders because, again, deep punches, tight clearances, and such. Some were a little over 2" tall, others over 7", and all in A2 steel. Tool/holder lengths are very different for the short ones versus the taller ones. Perhaps, I'm ignorant, but I just don't think automization has gotten that good...or am I wrong...

The level of technology(and the cost) would depend on which vendor you were working with, we have very advanced linking tools for new operations that use stock and flute/overall lengths during the toolpathing process.

This is definitely something we would be able to do.

If you would like to send me a simple/or not sample part with a before and after result, I would be happy to prepare a demo for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

The level of technology(and the cost) would depend on which vendor you were working with, we have very advanced linking tools for new operations that use stock and flute/overall lengths during the toolpathing process.

This is definitely something we would be able to do.

If you would like to send me a simple/or not sample part with a before and after result, I would be happy to prepare a demo for you.

 

Thanks, let me think about it. Honestly, I'm a little horrified that you were able to get rid of 6 programmers. That may be good for the company but bad for the employees, but we are having difficulty finding good programmers, and so automating our 2-d work might help when we are busier. Right now all 4 of us in our department were machinists first. So we understand the process and tooling, unlike the new guys who take a class on mastercam and think they are ready to jump in and start programming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sharles said:

 Honestly, I'm a little horrified that you were able to get rid of 6 programmers.

I didn't get rid of anyone, we had a layoff and almost everyone in my office quit, then they laid off  one more guy.

The new tools simply kept us on schedule as our man power fell.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

I didn't get rid of anyone, we had a layoff and almost everyone in my office quit, then they laid off  one more guy.

The new tools simply kept us on schedule as our man power fell.

I didn't mean that as an attack upon you. I know it's where we are heading. My wife says even doctors some day may become extinct as more and more robots are doing precision surgery...it's still a discouraging future as I think about our kids and grandkids who won't be able to find decent employment as the machines and computers take over....They won't have to kill us like the Terminator movies, lol, they'll just make us irrelevant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sharles said:

I didn't mean that as an attack upon you.

REPORTED!!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2021 at 10:46 AM, Metallic said:

report them to QC and they will get resolved when they push the first update

idk,

Did they fix this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seedy steve said:

idk,

Did they fix this ?

Like I mentioned in that thread- you're specifically asking for that behavior as a user. I don't understand what the behavior change would be- do you want the toolpath to ignore what you are asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While continuing to work with 2022 I am currently doing a part on our 6-axis machine which we have a machine simulator for, and finding yet more annoying things. First when I open it it opens full screen on one monitor and part of the other, second it does not remember my settings and I have to double check them every time it's opened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now it appears update 2 has broke something that worked before the update..................🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TERRYH said:

And now it appears update 2 has broke something that worked before the update..................🤬

Care to elaborate?  I haven't updated yet and I don't want to break something that I use,  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for over 11 years we have only ever programmed using surfaces so when we call in a new part it comes in as a solid then we create surfaces from that solid, then we select use original and either keep original solid or just un check that depending on what were doing, we have standards set up using colors from our designers so that we know what to do and what not to do on certain parts and areas kind of like what needs machined and what don't sort of thing, well now when you convert and have use original it ignores it and makes everything one color which has worked for the 11+ years I have been programing. 

color change.png

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2021 at 9:46 AM, Metallic said:

I dunno, I feel like this exact same thread gets pulled up out of the heap of ashes every single Mastercam release since I have been a part of. People freaked out when 2017 came along. In the end everyone adapted and it is arguably a better piece of software. Prove me wrong.

X9 was the best Mastercam ever.  About once a year I spend several days doing a project or two in the latest version to try to adapt, but everything takes me ten times as long as in X9.  I get so angry I feel like smashing my monitor with my keyboard; it's like the UI team tried really hard to find the MOST difficult and frustrating way to arrange things.

Yes, there are improvements.  Processing speed, a few improved toolpath algorithms, etc., but (for me at least) not nearly enough to make up for that aggravation and snail pace workflow.

 

Edit:

Before 2017 came out I was a beta program fanboi, always itching for the next release and pushing the envelope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek - Conventus said:

X9 was the best Mastercam ever.

True ... 5 years ago

We are doing an inconel hogout for our 5X Okuma right now

We're using a combination 3D Optirough driven by solids and stock models and 2D high speed toolpaths

and finishing with 3D high speed toolpaths

The file has over over a dozen stock models and 100+ operations now. 

The stock models crunch in 20 to 30 seconds and never go dirty 

The toolpaths are clean and crunch in 10 to 15 seconds. Tool holder collision checking and trimming 

are working exactly as they should.

We are running 1" 5 flute endmills 1.5" deep at 15 ipm and getting 80 to 90 minutes per tool..... hogging inconel

A project like this in V9 would have been a long painful experience  with crashes hours watching the wheels spin

hollow stock models toolpaths over engaging,. breaking endmills etc etc etc

It's not perfect though

I wish there was a way to force a directional bias to these toolpaths (like the degrees setting in parallel or raster 3D toolpaths)

All the same I remain blown away by just how good this project is going and how solid MC2022 is.

IMO 2022 is the best release yet. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree gcode the processing speeds and the stock model performance has greatly improved it's all the separation of things and addition of click after click to do the same thing you used to be able to do in 1 or 2 and IMO if it's not broke don't fix it. back in X9 and before when doing a surface driven program you selected surface rough pocket and it immediately wanted you to select the surfaces with no extra clicks, then they went to having to make 2 clicks before you selected them, not with 22 at least it's back to just one added, it's just stuff like that as well as changing stuff so that it does not stay where you have it set, it just makes it a pain in the azz to have to reselect stuff time after time when you are doing it multiple times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gcode said:

The stock models crunch in 20 to 30 seconds and never go dirty

Something I failed to mention

Due to regeneration times and stability issues. I've always saved stl files from Verify and used them to make stock models 

This time I'm using associative stock models, driven by toolpaths

Regen times are very quick and so far the resulting stock models have been completely stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gcode said:

Regen times are very quick and so far the resulting stock models have been completely stable.

Tom what are your computer specs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, #Rekd™ said:

Tom what are your computer specs?

An over clocked Boxx Apexx S3

I'm wishing I'd sprung for more ram.. but I was reaching the $$ threshold that I could get approved

 

 

Boxx Apexx S3.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gcode said:

An over clocked Boxx Apexx S3

I'm wishing I'd sprung for more ram.. but I was reaching the $$ threshold that I could get approved

 

 

Boxx Apexx S3.jpg

Ahh you are missing the liquid nitrogen cooled gpu, and a few hundred gigs of ram short...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These problems you're describing that have been fixed are problems that I've never had.  My stock models regen just fine, I've never had to resort to STLs.  Sure I'm not doing parts as complicated as some, but from what you're saying, at least for my work, I'm not missing out on much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Ahh you are missing the liquid nitrogen cooled gpu, and a few hundred gigs of ram short...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It is liquid cooled, but it could use some more ram

When I spec it out I should have gone BIG and let purchasing grind it down a little.

Of course they put four 8gig sticks in it

To go to 64g I'd have to buy four 16g sticks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek - Conventus said:

These problems you're describing that have been fixed are problems that I've never had.  My stock models regen just fine, I've never had to resort to STLs.  Sure I'm not doing parts as complicated as some, but from what you're saying, at least for my work, I'm not missing out on much.

Maybe the reason I’m so pleased with stock model performance is because I'm using a simple endmill.

Usually it's a high feed face mill or a big button cutter.

In the past, stock model regen times were so poor it was unworkable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gcode said:

Maybe the reason I’m so pleased with stock model performance is because I'm using a simple endmill.

Usually it's a high feed face mill or a big button cutter.

In the past, stock model regen times were so poor it was unworkable

3mm to 3/8" high feed cutters works fine for me, defined as a bull.  Scale of part makes a big difference I'm sure.  I'm fitting 98 parts in a 8" x 9" x .125" sheet on a vacuum fixture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us