Parametric programing

[strawson]

When will mastercam catch up with the other solid modelng software packages and use parametric programing, after all i have been told the kernel is the same for a lot of systems.

[kinglouie V]

MasterCam has partnered with Solid Works 'solid modeling software', and has an add-in that will with a click of a button will open MC with file active from SW. What more could you ask for?

[strawson]

I have done the SW training and found it hard to grasp (dumb mybe)If I could alter dimensions in mastercam, the same way as in solidworks I wouldnt have to learn two systems. or is it just a syntax thing.

[Müřlıń®]

quote:

---

When will mastercam catch up with the other solid modelng software packages and use parametric programing

---

Never I hope......it's much better the way it is now.

 

Parametric programming sux IMO.....Mastercam blows Proe's parametric programming away.....always has.....always will.....

[Storkman]

quote:

---

Parametric programming sux IMO.....Mastercam blows Proe's parametric programming away.....always has.....always will.....

---

C'Mon Murlin, stop beating around the bush......

 

 

[chip]

quote:

---

When will mastercam catch up with the other solid modelng software packages and use parametric programing, after all i have been told the kernel is the same for a lot of systems.

---

Parametric meaning able to change parameters? adjusting. updating.... When you change a parameter it adjusts the referancing parameters? What would you like it to do that it doesn't do?

[Müřlıń®]

Heh Stork......

 

OK, I didn't mean to offend, it's just that Parametric programming may be good for alot of simple stuff. When the files get huge and all those constraints start blowing up on yas and you spend all day rebuilding machining windows that took hrs to build the first time.....well....

 

Mastercam does not suffer from those problems because it is NOT parametric. And like others have stated it will do the same thing without being parametric.

[kinglouie V]

strawson,

 

try using the smart dimension feature while in sketch mode. this works best in base line type dimensioning. ooops not the solid works forum

 

http://forum.solidworks.com/swforum/defaul...?b=1&g=2&m=4548

[chip]

[strawson]

The only way i can get mastercam to do anything like parametric programming is to use the macro record and thats poo. is that your way of saying mastercam is parametric.

[deckard]

anyone who complains about parametric programming has never done enough of it to be good at it. Making changes to a design on MCAMX is archaic at best and does not update any features related to it like points and splines. You better off just starting all over again insted of modifying point locations, line lengths. MCAM is great for CAM work but near worthless for design work.

[Joel Walker]

you hit the nail right on the head deckard, mabe if we're lucky they'll include parametric programming in the future. I hope

[LaszloK]

When I was a UG user I initially got frustrated with parametric input and constraints. Once I figured how to use them correctly it greatly improved my performance and ability to alter my designs. I found it easy to model a family of parts starting with one paramterized and constrained initial design. Things like mold bases were easy to chang by inputting things like mold length, width, cavity depth and stroke. Any custom mold base was produced in minutes from the initial file. I do miss this. We do not use solidworks for tooling design here and all of our tooling is designed in MC solids so the solidworks add on does me no good. However, I can accomplish similar results as UG by altering me 2D geometry used for the solids and regenerating the solid. I also process changes in a similar fasion. It takes a bit longer than editing a parameter file but it is still efficient. If the CAD software cost was not important, I would use UG. I think that MC solids does a very good job for the price. With any of these systems it is a matter of knowing how to use the software provided. Having ranted for a bit, I would like to see MC solid modeling add more functionality from the parasolid kernel.

[Bruce Caulley]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go parametric MC!!!!!!!

[HevyMetl]

I agree.. If it were parametric our engineering/model shop would switch in a second. But when you are doing DOE's parametric and family tabled toolpaths rock.

 

I run mastercam because it is fast and efficient for 1 off parts and mold components. Not to mention the new HST's blow Pro Manufacturings so called HST's away. PTC has not even touched the manufacturing software for 3 versions now.

 

 

The quote above about those not liking it because they didn't use properly holds alot of water. The problem is there is such a learning curve that most shops don't have time for their programmers to get up to speed. I would also rather have a failure because of design change constraint fault than to manufacture the part 1 revision old because I forget to update and retool path my MC model. It takes ALOT of disciple to manage files across 2 systems.

 

SO in closing I like both for different reasons and applications, said John the fence sitter.

[Greg Williams]

I agree Parametric Modelling and Stock recognition are what is required next

[machtek]

-100 John the fence sitter. Solidworkd rocks Mastercam X rocks. Would love them combined. From Mcam standpoint, there is a radio button when installing solidworks that asks "allow model changes from sketches" maybe for those who like non parametric this would work.

My .02

[HevyMetl]

Missed my point. Both softwares have pluses and minus depending upon the applications presented. This whole post goes back to the one Exodus started last week. I am going to point to Chris's quote from that post. I wish I could hold the print infront of the machine and the machine would cut the part.

 

I do believe MC is moving towards parametric machining, bu that is not a jump you make overnight on software this well established. I would love, absolutly love to see solid stock recognition. I could save a lot of time in the machine or prgramming with this feature. I would no longer have to make false toolpaths to reference with rest mill to be able to cut air time in the machine. Some of the mold cavities we cut are pretty detialed and intensive.

 

Shoot if they are going to keep getting our maintenance money they can't give us everything in one shot. We wouldn't need anything else.

[Guest]

quote:

---

I agree Parametric Modelling and Stock recognition are what is required next

---

+1000

[machtek]

I fatfingered the - John, I meant +100 for John the fence sitter.

[New Job]

I have to agree with adding parametric modeling. Which is not the same as parametric programming (for those unitiated). It can be quite time consuming to make a simple change to a model by going back to the 2d geometry vs clicking on dimension and changing value as I can in MDesktop. I would much prefer to drop my MDesktop and use X exclusively. I don't becasue of the need to change my models.

[machtek]

I too noticed that the thread switched gears from the beginnig. I expected to open it and read all about Macro-B. But then I just thought strawson was reffering to modeling as programming, which I have heard before.

[Guest]

He is from across the pond and it is possible the terminology is "slightly" different over there.

 

But yeah, I thought originally this was going to be a Macro B as well

[beej]

quote:

---

Having ranted for a bit, I would like to see MC solid modeling add more functionality from the parasolid kernel.

---

+1000

they're gonna have to. they'll start losing seats if they don't.

 

Laszlok is right. Once you get good with sketches and constraints you wouldn't want to go back.

[machtek]

So just for S&G, is there a way to post is some form of macro instead of G code?