Remember those CPU Spikes to 100% from v9? Now Memory Usage in 2020 is along the same lines 5287.2MB

[Jobnt]

Remember in v9 when you didn't have a dialog box open (only the graphics screen) and CPU usage would spike to 100%? 

Now 2020 is spiking Memory usage the same way. I closed and re-started MC before I started this thread and it's sitting without a part open at 566.7MB.

Trying to verify a part and it basically stopped with Memory usage at a whopping 5,287.2 MB.

Running Win 10 Pro, i7-7700k CPU @ 4.2 ghz with 32 mb of ram on a NVIDIA Quadro P2200.

Thanks!

 

[Newbeeee™]

Is this because....basically....under the hood....it's still the same?

[Jobnt]

IIRC when they went to a windows interface they just skinned the old dos program.

I kind of doubt they did a complete re-write of the code from the ground up for X versions so there's a good possibility. 

[Simon Kausch]

I don't understand the problem. If you have the RAM why not use it?

[cncappsjames]

"It's still DOS under the hood".

 

If I had a nickel I heard that...

Color me seriously skeptical. If Peteey tells me it's so I'll believe it. Otherwise; myth busted. 

[Jobnt]

55 minutes ago, cncappsjames said:

Color me seriously skeptical.

So you're saying MC was re-written from the ground up for X?

Then why do so many of the issues we have now seem eerily familiar to the ones we had in v9? And why are there 3 different interfaces for different groups of toolpath managers? One being almost an exact copy of the legacy manager?

Etc., etc., etc. 

But yeah, I'll agree if Thee Petee says it's so. 

[#Rekd™]

I assume Mastercam 2017 onward is a different beast then X-X9. 

[Jobnt]

[Newbeeee™]

^^^TBF, is that V9 or 2020?

 

[Aaron Eberhard]

Well, to start, "new" Verify was written by ModuleWorks and was released starting in Mastercam X7/8, so unless they invented time machines, it'd be reeeeeaaalllll hard to have that the same as the V9 version. If they did invent time machines, it seems like a real waste of potential to be retrofitting Mastercam....

I often have parts where verification/simulation or a complete regen utilizes 24+Gb.  That's what it's there for.

[Jobnt]

18 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

Well, to start, "new" Verify was written by ModuleWorks and was released starting in Mastercam X7/8, so unless they invented time machines, it'd be reeeeeaaalllll hard to have that the same as the V9 version. If they did invent time machines, it seems like a real waste of potential to be retrofitting Mastercam....

I often have parts where verification/simulation or a complete regen utilizes 24+Gb.  That's what it's there for.

I was referring to the toolpath managers, NOT verify/simulation. So you don't need a time machine.

51 minutes ago, Newbeeee™ said:

^^TBF, is that V9 or 2020?

That's 2020 with what appears to be an un-reskinned, exact copy of the old v9 manager. 

So if current MC really IS a complete re-write from the ground up, why wouldn't they update this? 

[Aaron Eberhard]

27 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

I was referring to the toolpath managers, NOT verify/simulation. So you don't need a time machine.

That's 2020 with what appears to be an un-reskinned, exact copy of the old v9 manager. 

So if current MC really IS a complete re-write from the ground up, why wouldn't they update this? 

Sorry, I was responding to your original post that stated "Trying to verify a part and it basically stopped with Memory usage at a whopping 5,287.2 MB."   Apologies if we've moved on from that.

It's definitely not a complete rewrite between v9 and X, and I don't believe anyone is saying they are.  Think of software more like a car, the components are modular.  Sort of like how you can bolt a LS2 engine to a TR6060 transmission, as the interface is compatible.  It's a lot harder to go backwards, though!

The windows dialogs of the old toolpaths are still components that work fine, so it hasn't been prioritized to update them as there hasn't been new functionality added those individual toolpaths that require new interfaces as the new toolpath engines are the ones that needed interfaces to support the new features.

[Jobnt]

37 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

It's definitely not a complete rewrite between v9 and X, and I don't believe anyone is saying they are.

3 hours ago, cncappsjames said:

Color me seriously skeptical. If Peteey tells me it's so I'll believe it. Otherwise; myth busted. 

So if Aaron says it's still got dos under the hood, do you believe it? Or just  if Thee Peete says it?

(In before the obligatory "well I wasn't talking about it being ALL dos" swerve reply. )

 

37 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

Sorry, I was responding to your original post that stated "Trying to verify a part and it basically stopped with Memory usage at a whopping 5,287.2 MB."   Apologies if we've moved on from that.

Well, you kind of morphed my OP into the "still dos under the hood" comment without answering the OP, so yeah. 

37 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

The windows dialogs of the old toolpaths are still components that work fine, so it hasn't been prioritized to update them as there hasn't been new functionality added those individual toolpaths that require new interfaces as the new toolpath engines are the ones that needed interfaces to support the new features.

So back to the OP, what's causing it? Legacy code or something new?

[#Rekd™]

Memory leak is my guess.

 

[byte]

17 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

So if Aaron says it's still got dos under the hood, do you believe it? Or just  if Thee Peete says it?

Windows was built on top of dos until Windows NT (1st version windowsXP), Windows NT is a Stand Alone OS not build on DOS,

That being said, I could create a program that makes a simple window that would run on windows 95, the same program would run on windows 11 if recompiled or with the right runtimes installed, so the code exposed by the api doesn't necessarily change, kind of like changing car parts, but the steering wheel is still the same

[AMCNitro]

It seems all you do is complain about the software...

[byte]

11 minutes ago, AMCNitro said:

It seems all you do is complain about the software...

That is so far from true you have no idea, he complains about loads of other things as well!

[#Rekd™]

19 minutes ago, byte said:

That is so far from true you have no idea, he complains about loads of other things as well!

I almost spit my lunch out laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gcode]

1 hour ago, byte said:

That is so far from true you have no idea, he complains about loads of other things as well!

Yup, he'd b!tch about it if you hung him with a new rope 

[Jobnt]

2 hours ago, AMCNitro said:

It seems all you do is complain about the software...

It seems all you do is try to create conflict within the member base...So I reported your reply for harassment. 

Just kidding, but since you brought it up... what, exactly, is this forum supposed to be for? Is it just for people to come and praise CNC Software for the excellent work on Mastercam? Or to bring up issues we have with the software?

[byte]

Btw what happened to all the good gif emojies,

I mean, what am i paying maintenance for?

[Aaron Eberhard]

2 hours ago, Jobnt said:

So if Aaron says it's still got dos under the hood, do you believe it? Or just  if Thee Peete says it?

(In before the obligatory "well I wasn't talking about it being ALL dos" swerve reply. )

I'm not sure you understand what you mean when you say " it's still got dos under the hood."  I certainly don't.  Can you expand on that? 

2 hours ago, Jobnt said:

Well, you kind of morphed my OP into the "still dos under the hood" comment without answering the OP, so yeah.

Much like James, I've been hearing about a "DOS Kernel" for years....

2 hours ago, Jobnt said:

So back to the OP, what's causing it? Legacy code or something new?

3 hours ago, Jobnt said:

I was referring to the toolpath managers, NOT verify/simulation. So you don't need a time machine.

"So back to the OP," do you mean the memory usage verifying a ~500mb file, or do you mean the the toolpath interface?

[Jobnt]

11 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

"So back to the OP," do you mean the memory usage verifying a ~500mb file, or do you mean the the toolpath interface?

Neither. 

The file is 38megs in size not 500. The spiking, as I mentioned in OP, happened with the file just sitting there after I opened it. Not in verify. Not processing a toolpath. 

The reason for the post is that when i was trying to verify this file it only moved one step every 10 or 15 seconds. That prompted me to close MC and re-start it, then I opened the task manager and monitor the file's system usage before I did anything with the file. 

19 minutes ago, Aaron Eberhard said:

Much like James, I've been hearing about a "DOS Kernel" for years....

I brought up v9 as a reference for basically the same issue as I have in 2020.

[Aaron Eberhard]

9 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

Neither. 

The file is 38megs in size not 500. The spiking, as I mentioned in OP, happened with the file just sitting there after I opened it. Not in verify. Not processing a toolpath.

If you shoot over the file, I'd be happy to take a look at it and see if it reproduces on my system, or send it into [email protected] if there's a repeatable problem.

I've currently got 5 different sessions of Mastercam open (2022-24), each one sitting at ~1-1.3Gb of RAM (depending on the file, most of the disk file sizes here are ~2-600MB) with no problem.

[cncappsjames]

12 hours ago, Jobnt said:

So if Aaron says it's still got dos under the hood, do you believe it? Or just  if Thee Peete says it?

(In before the obligatory "well I wasn't talking about it being ALL dos" swerve reply. )

My apologies for not using more precise language in my criticism of your "DOS under the hood" trope.