solids

[harleysport557]

hi all. The company I work for currently utilizes MC9.1 w/out the solids option. Our design department uses solid works '05 and we, in the tooling department import and convert the files. When MC10 comes-out, would there be any advantages to getting the solids option? Being fairly new to mastercam I cannot answer this question adequately enough for my superiors.

[Fig sign]

Solid option is a must in design .

I would not wait for X and would start to use it

now.

Can not live without it (first couple of years I worked without it ,much ,much sloooowwwer ! )

[robk]

+1 Iskander

 

Solidworks and Mastercam are the perfect match (not '05 yet). No need to convert the files, and you get a solids history tree with it.

[Lee.]

+12000 for Solids option, had it since day one with Mastercam. Wayyy easier than surfaces to manipulate.

 

Just don't machine from solids.

 

My 2 cents

[Brendan P]

We just got the solids option for my seat,and it is a very affordable option especially for all that it does.

At least get a quote from your dealer,you may just be surprised how affordable it is! (I was)

[harleysport557]

thanks to all for your input

[P_Scott]

harleysport557,

 

Solids in Mastercam has recently been reduced in price. This makes it the best value for any add-on product in Mcam, IMO. It is a very easy way to design or manipulate solid designs from other CAD systems. As robk and others have stated, it is very compatible with SolidWorks. There is a Direct converter which will allow the user of SolidWorks to open their design file in a seat of Mastercam if you have both packages on the same computer.

 

One thing that many users of Mcam are just now discovering is the ease of use for applying toolpath data to solid geometry.

quote:

---

Just don't machine from solids.

---

This is simply not true. The time saved on even 2-D toolpaths from solids more than pays for the purchase of the Solids module within a few months. I can program with solid geometry on average about 90% faster than with surfaces or wireframe.

 

Plus the necessary depths and other critical data is accurately saved in the solid model. Mcam is aware of the coordinate locations of every solid face and edge. Selecting specific points directly from the solid, without ever having to produce extraneous wireframe data, is a breeze. Solid edges can be used for toolpath containment boundaries. Solids is the way to go. Get on board now and you'll notice a difference immediately. Ask your Mcam reseller for a demo using your SolidWorks parts. Have your supervisors sit in with you during the demo so they can see what a difference it makes. HTH

 

Brendan,

 

When are you going to sign up for Solids training? We have a Solids class tomorrow and Friday. That's probably too soon for you but you could always come for the next one.

[Bunny McRabbit]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just don't machine from solids.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I support this statement !

Design with solid ,then convert to surfaces and

mill them .

Solid milling has issues and also not so user friendly .

Associativity to loose ? - you pay the price .

But ,if you`ll mill from solids ,especially 3d

sutface toolpathes ,be prepared to some funny things that may happen to you from time to time .

But anyway solids package is great thing ,and not so bad in compare even with Solidworks ,it has some great tools and it is stronger from version to version .

 

Regards

[medaq]

Never regenerate your 3d toolpaths, if your solid model is off on a level. I use the solids and pull off faces to mill. I notice that if you had the solid hidden of off on a level then regenerate it loses all the faces you picked. Where as if you have picked surfaces it will regenerate properly even if it is off or blanked.

 

After alot of annoyances I usualy just create-surface-next menu-from sold

 

And pick the faces I want and pull them in. I dont like always making surfaces from the whole model. But to each his own.

 

Jim

[somename75]

I have also noticed that toolpaths from solids are buggy as hell, compared to wireframe and surfaces, lots of in-explicable things happen.

just my .02

[Lee.]

I wonder if Brendan can explain goofy toolpaths from solids?

 

Seems like lots of people have this problem and it was posted before also.

 

Machine from Surfaces always!!!!!

[cadist]

quote:

---

Just don't machine from solids.

---

Sorry, I don't agree with that. I have been using solid machining regularly and my opinion are similar to peter in this regard. JMHO

[kkominiarek]

i machine from both solids and surfaces from solids......it depends on the workpiece and what operation i am using.....i haven't noticed any buggy toolpaths from solids.

[Brendan P]

quote:

---

I wonder if Brendan can explain goofy toolpaths from solids?

---

Don't count on it...

I just started to work with solids.

Brendan teh still prehistoric...

[Lee.]

Sorry Brendan. I must have been sleeping.

 

It was Peter that made the bold statement.

 

So, I wonder if Peter can explain goofy toolpaths from solids.

[Brendan P]

Lee,congrats to the new avatar..

Is that a bayliner?

 

Ya Petee,what gives???

[Storkman]

When I talked our company into solids, all I heard was it is great for design. It doesn't help much for programming. BULL!!! It is all I use. No more spending days creating blend surfaces or filling gaps in surfaces. What used to take me days to create, I can do in hours or less. (More forum time.) Buy it!!! JM2C.

[P_Scott]

Brendan,

 

quote:

---

Ya Petee,what gives?

---

If you recall, I asked you a question first.

 

Lee and others,

 

AFAIK, there are no toolpath issues with Solids as opposed to other geometry. I have never experienced "bugs" with the toolpathing of solid geometry, whether it was designed in Mcam or in another package. Toolpaths are toolpaths. Geometry is geometry. Solids are just another form of geometry. Perhaps the "bugs" you're experiencing are a result of a hardware issue. I use ALL geometry types with toolpaths. I prefer Solids, it's just quicker to select the data I need to make good toolpath. As Storkman said

quote:

---

No more spending days creating blend surfaces or filling gaps in surfaces. What used to take me days to create, I can do in hours or less.

---

Solids is a great value for return on investment in the software. From Solid Drill to 3D "surface" toolpaths, to Turning, it simply makes sense. Almost every CAD system designs with it. Why not take that native solid design and machine it? Instead of converting it from the CAD system to an IGES , or DXF or something less accurate and not "watertight". I have yet to train someone in Solids who hasn't seen an advantage to using it within the first hour of class. Schedule a demo of Solids with your reseller and have your boss sit in with you. You won't be disappointed.

[Lee.]

Brendan, It's a CRUISERS, 26 foot Made in Oconto, Wisconsin.

[Lee.]

The experiences I am referring to are related to 3D contour toolpaths.

 

When I select the whole solid. it includes all the surfaces in it's selection processing, it just ignores them upon toolpath generation when it feels fit to do so.

 

Quite often contouring the backside of a surface that is inside my part.

[P_Scott]

Lee,

 

That doesn't sound like toolpaths using solid geometry. Can you place any of your "problem" files up on the FTP so I, and others, can look it over? There may be something else going on. When doing 3-D toolpath, whether Contour or otherwise, I usually select the whole solid part and just use a solid edge loop as containment. Have you discussed this issue with your reseller? HTH

[JayMan]

I think the problems that arise from programming from a solid have to do with the model itself. If I created the solid, it seems to work fine. If I get the file from engineering, it usually sucks, because they only care what the picture look like, and I have to convert it from pro-e or solidworks..

[chip]

Mastercam is where it at. This is not a negative reply. If you already use Solidworks '05. They work directly well together. When building in Mastercam Solids, when you start using booleans and big features like that. The files get big and sometimes just translating features etc. take some time. Mastercam Solids rocks over all other cam systems I have seen. Big assemblies in solids, I have to give it to Solidworks.

[Müřlıń®]

IMO, most of the problems that arise from machining a solid model, stem from broken chains and check surfaces not doing what you want it to.

 

The secret is to have every one of your intersections come together precisely.

 

Now in the reality, we know this does not happen all the time on very complex models that you build in Mastercam. And more so on imported models that you must run through a translator of have already been. To check this observsation, simply create edgecurves from a boundary and see if it chains at your set tolerance. I always just do a color chain on the curves and see it it loops.

[Lee.]

Honestly guys, I think the world of mastercam, but there are issues around certain areas of it's functionality.

 

When machining from Surfaces I have never had a problem.

 

When creating surfaces from a solid, I do on occasion have problems. To fix them all I do is to save the file and try again. It works. That to me is flaky at best.

 

I understand how complex it must be to get everything working together in one small package.

 

I have had solids files screw up my toolpath and no apparent reason.

 

Sometimes I've been told to select a tool containment boundary.

 

Sometimes I don't neeed one. I want to contour the whole thing. Still it decides to dive through a solid face that would be picked upon picking the whole solid, which I do all the time.

 

HTH