Reorder Planes ?

[OVodov]

26 minutes ago, #Rekd™ said:

Mastercam is excellent for modeling.

LOL

For non-parametric CAD yes, but it will always loose to parametric one.

[#Rekd™]

I like the fact it is a direct modeler, for what I do it works very well. 

It is not an engineering software like a full version of NX or Catia.

 

[OVodov]

Nobody asks MC to have full CAD functions like assembling many components or stress simulate,

Having parametric sketcher would only benefit us as programmers and safe our time.

[#Rekd™]

4 minutes ago, OVodov said:

Having parametric sketcher would only benefit us as programmers and safe our time.

I disagree, for me it would add time. I can use the model prep to easily alter a solid for my needs. Adding constraints is restrictive for my use.

Obviously we are using it for different purposes. 

This impeller was 100% modeled in Mastercam.

 

 

[neurosis]

43 minutes ago, OVodov said:

Nobody asks MC to have full CAD functions like assembling many components or stress simulate,

 

I wouldn't mind if it had those things as well.    Or at least solid assembly functionality.  It would sure make my job easier.   Dynamic transform is great but constraints sure would be nice.

[#Rekd™]

9 minutes ago, neurosis said:

I wouldn't mind if it had those things as well.    Or at least solid assembly functionality.  It would sure make my job easier.   Dynamic transform is great but constraints sure would be nice.

I thought you had or were using TopSolid? 

[neurosis]

3 minutes ago, #Rekd™ said:

I thought you had or were using TopSolid? 

 

I do but I'd rather be able to do everything inside of MC.  I wouldn't want to see the current tools inside of MC disappear obviously.

There are times that I import things in to MC and need to move them around. That's where the assembly functionality would be nice. 

Using TopSolid (or some other true full cad/cam systems) kinda spoils you. 

We dropped maintenance on TopSolid last year.   I would imagine that eventually we won't be able to continue running it as operating systems get updated.    

[cncappsjames]

I will say about MC's CAD... I've modeled some parts (cylinder head ports, blinks, and a few other things) that "I" would not have been able to model in anything else. That only speaks to my lack of CAD skills in CATIA or Inventor, not CATIA or Inventor's capabilities. 

[OVodov]

I used Solidworks for years until started to work for the company which doesn’t have it.

it took me a while to get used to use MC for CAD and I hated it.

Now I do have SW but still use MC for modelling fixtures, clamps etc. It’s easy to make everything in one place. Still modelling and assembling is easier in SW.

[gcode]

As MC CAD has added more features, I use SW less and less.

I find the Translate by Planes and Translate to Origin especially useful.

We have a skilled Catia designer now who provides us with CAM ready Catia models,

so I rarely do full on modeling anymore. My SW skills are suffering as a result.

[neurosis]

22 minutes ago, gcode said:

My SW skills are suffering as a result

 

I'm a little worried that in the future, when TS become a pain to run (discontinued maintenance) we're going to pick SW back up for our modeling.   I don't know if I'll remember how to use it.  lol.

[gcode]

Why did you let TS go??

That was a big investment which will eventually die on the vine.

A previous manager let our hyperMIll seat go in 2017 and it continued to run OK.

We recently got a massive package of new parts that I use hyperMill to rough and I convinced

my current manager to get back on maintenance. Open Mind made us a really good deal and

it was well worth the expense as the software has improved a lot over the last 6 releases.

[neurosis]

29 minutes ago, gcode said:

Why did you let TS go??

 When we purchased it, they told us that any posts that had already been developed would be free to us.  A few years in they yanked all of our posts except for one and told us that we would have to pay a fortune for the machine definitions and posts to support our machines.  I've hacked all of the post we use in MC so we get that for free. It just didn't make sense financially to support them under those circumstances when we had everything we needed with MC.  As far as the two systems go, I'd much rather be using TS.

If our shop didn't have so many different machines this may not have been an issue.  We would have had to purchase 5 lathe posts and 4 mill at around 2k each.

I tried to work with the US reseller on this since they sold us the software under the assumption that we would always have access to those posts but they wouldn't work with us on it.  

I don't want to xxxx on TS too much.  They made a flawless post for our KME tombstone although that post broke with a software update and was never the same after.

[#Rekd™]

We were offered TS as an Educational edition (we are an educational facility), they promised the same thing...FREE posts etc....Never materialized.

 

 

 

[gcode]

22 minutes ago, #Rekd™ said:

Educational edition (we are an educational facility

That's how you grow your user base

In 1997 I had decided CAD/CAM would be the future and I needed to learn.

There was no internet to do research with and I was using TekSoft/Procad

because that's what our local machine dealer sold me. I had never heard of Mastercam.

The local community college was offering a 2 semester Mastercam program (v5) so I took it.

I think TekSoft/Procad was a better product in 1995 but Mastercam was the only class I could take so I signed up.

 

[neurosis]

31 minutes ago, #Rekd™ said:

We were offered TS as an Educational edition (we are an educational facility), they promised the same thing...FREE posts etc....Never materialized.

The software is really good.  I couldn't in good faith recommend it to smaller shops like ours.  If  you're in a position that you can absorb the added costs the software is pretty amazing.

[Mick]

5 hours ago, neurosis said:

The software is really good.  I couldn't in good faith recommend it to smaller shops like ours.  If  you're in a position that you can absorb the added costs the software is pretty amazing.

It is a shame that you got dealt that way up there. Kind of the reverse down here. MC representation down here is well..... meh.

As you know, down here I handle it differently

Since moving to TS, on the very rare occasions I have to use MC, I find it slow. Not because I haven't used it in a while, but because the workflow is cumbersome compared to TS. Plus, as you pointed out, being spoilt with the full blown CAD makes life so much easier, especially when working on anything from tool assemblies, fixtures, or even kinematic machine models. Everything uses the same engine.

If you had been handled differently, and better, you would have gone from strength to strength with TS and the purple Hasp would have been a distant memory LOL

[medaq]

On 6/30/2023 at 6:26 AM, neurosis said:

Wouldn't it be nice if MC had a decent sketcher for solid modeling?   

 

I know people complain about modeling in Mastercam, but I prefer Mastercam to most anything else. I can do things faster than my counterpart in Solidworks. Especially if I have a similiar product and I just want to modify. Now I do wish we could pull solids from a linked location like solidworks does. So if I make a change it would modify all the reast of the files using that file. 

[Jobnt]

3 minutes ago, medaq said:

I know people complain about modeling in Mastercam, but I prefer Mastercam to most anything else. I can do things faster than my counterpart in Solidworks. Especially if I have a similiar product and I just want to modify. Now I do wish we could pull solids from a linked location like solidworks does. So if I make a change it would modify all the reast of the files using that file. 

Workflow in SW is way different than MC. I have both open at the same time most days. 

I prefer SW over MC for 90% of the things I do. Especially if I built the SW model with correct design intent. That makes doing edits really easy and associative.

Once the model is in MC I typically make small edits there unless they need to be built/edited in to the assembly, then I'll update the model and re-import it to MC. 

[medaq]

19 hours ago, Jobnt said:

Workflow in SW is way different than MC. I have both open at the same time most days. 

I prefer SW over MC for 90% of the things I do. Especially if I built the SW model with correct design intent. That makes doing edits really easy and associative.

Once the model is in MC I typically make small edits there unless they need to be built/edited in to the assembly, then I'll update the model and re-import it to MC. 

And everyone is going to use what they prefer. I am just saying there are things inside of mastercam I can do that My counter part in solidworks cannot. I have been using mastercam to design and make parts ever wince they released solids in Version 8? or was it 7? Anyhow, little things like using similar geometry from a solid I already have, I can import all that geo and get to work on a new part. Anyhow it works for me, I am able to pull off some great designs. Been able to model an organic looking dragon biting the barrel of a paintball gun inside mastercam. So basically you can do anything you want if you understand it well enough. 

[Jobnt]

26 minutes ago, medaq said:

there are things inside of mastercam I can do that My counter part in solidworks cannot.

That's a training issue. I can't think of anything CAD that MC can do that SW cannot.  

But you're right. People will use what they're better at and what they prefer. 

[medaq]

13 minutes ago, Jobnt said:

That's a training issue. I can't think of anything CAD that MC can do that SW cannot.  

But you're right. People will use what they're better at and what they prefer. 

I thought I just gave one example. Can you import the certain geometry from a previously created solid feature? I know you can make duplicates of a solid and modify, but sometimes I just want a certain shape I already made from another solid feature. But then again my work flow is not the same for every one. Every program has goods and bads. 

[Mick]

Purely from a user perspective, I have used MC, Unigraphics/NX, Solidworks, Inventor and then finally, TopSolid, in that order.

When I was a Mastercam user, I did some pretty hefty modelling in it, such as injection moulds, impellers, Impeller Blade dies, and all manner of 3D prototypes. I always stated that it was a good capable modeller, even in the pre Solids days.

However, once I started using Unigraphics etc, I realised how much more productive full blown CAD modellers are, especially when making changes. Not to mention freeform modelling (notably variable fillets, and surfacing functions).

However, while I was comfortable with Unigraphics/NX, I never got to grips with Inventor or Solidworks. Both those applications I really disliked using. When I started using TopSolid, I found the modelling and assembly management really good. Very easy to use, and very capable. What I find interesting nowadays, is when shops get TopSolid for programming (and have designers using Solidworks), once the design staff check out TopSolid, they always have positive comments about it, and to the point that the designers start to look at TopSolid closer.

[Jobnt]

One thing that SW absolutely STINKS at is their approach to file management in general and PDM in particular. It's a great concept that's poorly implemented.

[TFarrell9]

On 7/4/2023 at 11:28 AM, #Rekd™ said:

I disagree, for me it would add time. I can use the model prep to easily alter a solid for my needs. Adding constraints is restrictive for my use.

Obviously we are using it for different purposes. 

This impeller was 100% modeled in Mastercam.

 

 

Do you have any videos on how to model this? I'd really like to learn how to create a dynamic solid like an impeller blade. I wasn't even sure it was possible in mastercam.