Mastercam X verify question

[G Caputo]

I was just wondering if the STL not watertight error has gone away in Mastercam X. I suppose what I am really asking, does the new version convert solids to stl's for verification purposes better than it does now? If anyone is allowed to say, I'd appreciate the info. If not, I understand.

 

Thanks,

Greg

[Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc.]

We are still pushing MachineWorks (the company that we license the Verify techology from) to make the handling of STL files foolproof. It's getting better but we're still not happy with it either.

We have tried to remind them how important this is to a lot of our customers.

[Hardmill]

...LEAKY,LEAKY,....

 

PEACE

[Thad]

Speaking of verify, STL, and X ...can you compare to an STL in verify WHEN IN A WCS OTHER THAN TOP? Currently, it's not supported in MR0304.

 

Thad

[Mike Whitten CAD/CAM Contractors]

Yes!,

 

This would be great! We need to be able to use "STL Compare" in views other than "System view top"

 

Since we use WCS all the time now, we are not able to use "STL compare". We must rely on other methods which really should not be needed. We have many multi axis machines and this would be great to be able to have "STL Compare" one day. Even if it was an option that could be purchased.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

[gcode]

If you are making you STL file from a solid model,

try using SolidWorks to make it. SW generated

STL file frequently come into Verify correctly

when MC STL files don't.

You can use the SW Coordinate System to orient

the STL file correvtly in Mastercam

[Chris Rizzo]

Hey gcode,

 

I remember a while back you were talking about the coordinate system in SW. I've played with it briefly, but hav'nt had luck outputing it into MC with the MC direct add-in. Could you run be though your process briefly? thx.

[gcode]

It doesn't work with the add-in - I been bugging them for 2 years about that

 

try

File

Save As

choose binary parasolid from the file dropdown

then Options

and pick your cooridinate system from the dropdown on the options page.

 

In Mastercam its File/Convert/parasolid/read file

 

Its not as convenient as the add-in, but having the solid land in Mastercam correctly is worth the extra effort IMO

 

It works for stl and IGES too.

[Glenn Bouman]

quote:

---

We are still pushing MachineWorks (the company that we license the Verify techology from) to make the handling of STL files foolproof. It's getting better but we're still not happy with it either.

---

Stl files from Mastercam (usually from surfaces) also gives errors in Predator Virtual CNC.

 

quote:

---

If you are making you STL file from a solid model,

try using SolidWorks to make it. SW generated

STL file frequently come into Verify correctly

when MC STL files don't.

---

Seems like fingers may not be pointed in the right direction.

 

Put your problem files on the FTP site and I can try them in Predator Virtual CNC. I have access to another product that also uses Lightworks.

 

I am sure Karlo Apro can also help nail down this on-going problem with his Vericut connections.

[gcode]

I have to agree with Glen.

Almost any Mastercam generated STL file that has overhanging features will come out bad in Verify or Predator.

Create a solid that looks like an upsidedown top hat.

Make an STL of it in Mastercam and SolidWorks.

The Mastercam STL will look like a waterfall in Predator and Verify. The SolidWorks STL will look

fine in Predator and might be OK in Verify.

[Thad]

During a recent search, I thought I read that you can verify to ANY other file type that MC can create. For example, you could compare to a .dwg. It was either someone from IHS or CNC Software that made that statement. I'm going to try to find that thread again.

 

Thad

[Glenn Bouman]

Here are some work arounds I use when dealing with STL files from surface models.

 

 

1) Make sure surface normals are facing out.

2) With revolved surfaces (Verifying mill toolpaths on lathe parts) Fillet all sharp corners to .002 and use Create, Spline, Curves to make it a single entity and create the surface on that entity.

[Thad]

My mistake. Here's the thread I was talking about. See the last post by PDG. It's the "stock file" that can use files other than STL. Damn, thought I was on to something!

 

Thad

[G Caputo]

Thanks all for the responses. Not what I was hoping to hear though. The last program I made had 13 set ups and without being able to make an .stl and verify it from one set up to the next, it gets downright impossible to know what and where to blend surfaces I missed from a previous set up.

 

Thanks again,

Greg

[Mike Whitten CAD/CAM Contractors]

G Caputo,

 

Go to your "ops" directory and add a line 77 in the file: "verify.prm", like below:

 

77 0.003

 

I learned this from this forum, it is a "work around". I think it was James that helped me on this. Do a search, there was at least a thread or two on this work around. I think you can start at about .002 but I just use .003 most of the time. You should be able to eliminate or at least drastically reduce the "watertight" problem.

 

Mike

[iowajim62]

Hi all,

 

Hey Pete,

quote:

---

We have tried to remind them how important this is to a lot of our customers.

---

give us an email addy we'll ALL remind them about a billion times

 

Pretty sad really that the best CAD/CAM on the market has such crappy verify from a second or third rate supplier. Could do alot better IMHO

[Zero]

quote:

---

Pretty sad really that the best CAD/CAM on the market has such crappy verify from a second or third rate supplier. Could do alot better IMHO

---

I have to agree there. As of right now verify is completely useles while using the WCS, which is something I use on every job. I had my fingers crossed that the verify module was going to undergo a complete overhaul just like MC itself...guess not

[GreggT]

IMO, it shouldn't be necesary to output .stl to do a compare. I'm wondering why all of this isn't integrated into MC and essentially invisible to the user???? I just moved from a less expensive and less feature rich product that did compare exceptionally well. It didn't do several other thing very well, but...if a product that is half the money can figure this out looks like MC should be able to get it nailed by now? Maybe they could just purchase this other company and integrate the working system????? It didn't have problem one when changing WCS/setups and verifying. I like when people point to their vendors when their having problems, makes you wonder why their using that vendor????

 

As has been said before this is a very important issue. I'm looking for a tool that is going to allow me to get a good part the first time the program is ran, MC has a long way to go to make this easy for me to accomplish.

[Mike Whitten CAD/CAM Contractors]

I agree with everyone! Maybe we all need to just start making more inquiries to CNC. Maybe they don't understand the importance of this. I and everyone I know in this area just fight these issues.

 

Mike

[somename75]

Count me in too, I was either confused or didn't ask a pointed enough question during the mastercam demo before we bought two seats as I too have found the verify to be laughable in its realiablity, and function. Very dissapointing, and a huge hurdle for me to get good parts out quickly. I am aware of a few work arounds, but feel that for the price I should not have to use them. I'm all for anything that can get this working properly. Toss out a few email adresses and I would be happy to write them.

[steve f]

Wouldn't it be great if Verify was a rendered version of Backplot with the other goodies attached?

 

I share everyone's pain on this issue.

 

Anyone from CNC listening in?

 

steve

[Tim Aydt Prototek Engineering]

I had a conversation with a programmer from Machine Works during IMTS. She told me they are working on the problem. BTW Mastercam isn't the only Cam package having problems with Machine Works product.

[Richard Thomas - Mastercam UK]

quote:

---

I was just wondering if the STL not watertight error has gone away in Mastercam X.

---

In Mcam X we have used three STL files as stock, which didn't work in Mcam9. It may not be "fixed", but it is better.

 

Sorry it took nearly a year to get a reply to you though!