is X better?

[TOOLDEV]

I would like to hear objective opinions on X.

During the long (and expensive) wait for version X, I have developed high expectations.

As far as I am concerned version X came at a high price, it was the reason that got me onto the maintenance program in the first place, which I had to pay over 2 years because of the delay, then I had to buy new computers, now training etc.

 

Right now I am frustrated because I do not see any substantial improvements.

I see a totally different interface that is not very intuitive, with strange pictures.

The computer crashes on ongoing bases, tech support appears to be overloaded.

3 hrs ago I tried to print, the print came out crap, I got kicked out of mastercam twice, after going back in, the zoom did not work, I had to reboot to get this working.

Tech support did not return my call in 3 hrs.

 

The surface machined part does not look better, in fact I found the same solid machined on a different cam package looks better than the one with the master cam generated tool path. (Scallop leaves a lot of transition marks).

 

What is going on here?

I have never had anything negative to say about Mastercam, other people bought the package because of my praise for its capability.

 

Will this get any better?

Am I too entrenched in the version 9 interfaces?

Are there others who feel the same way?

 

Peter

[Thad]

We've had our share of troubles that we're slowly getting worked out. The more I use MCX, the more I like it. I don't know if that's because it's better, or if I just enjoy learning something new.

 

I'm keeping a positive attitude about it all. I don't think CNC Software is going to change back to the old interface, so......this is it. Either you like it or you won't, but this is now Mastercam.

 

Hang in there, Peter. It'll get better.

 

Thad

[Müřlıń®]

quote:

---

Scallop leaves a lot of transition marks

---

This is prol caused by machine slop due to directional change....

[medaq]

Personaly, I would rather see someones opion of the software that actualy has to pay for it. Employees normaly dont care about the price and want to learn something new. But to foot the bill and then say , oh yea this stuff is great would be a different opion entirely.

 

As someone running a small company, I am seeing all the problems that have arisen. And well quite frankly I dont see how it would increase my efficiency. And the whole maintenance thing drives me nuts. I dont see anything that forces mastercam to better test and release better product. In fact I see the complete opposite. They have no reason to deliver a perfect product to the consumer. I can see them actualy leaving bugs in place so you are forced to keep the maintenance running to keep fixing the issues that are in place. Call me a conspiracy theorist, But you have to agree with me a little. Now I would hate to think that any of that is true. But what is there incentive to give you perfect code? I dont see anything that would force them to that. I can not sell my customers a maintenance program with the parts I build. If I did that I would have no customers.

[Shawn Crews]

TOOLDEV,

 

SP1 is out and appears to fix many printing issues. Also make sure your printer drivers are up-to-date.

 

As far as crashing goes, check your video drivers. Mastercam X is a lot more graphics-intensive than 9 was. Make sure you have a good Open GL card with latest drivers. nVidia Quadro series seems to work well. YMMV.

 

-Shawn

[Slava_6]

Long time waited for the new version. Hopes were not justified. Service should work now very well to remove all mistakes.

[spade117]

I have had problems, but most of them were resolved by either reading the book or asking on this forum. I don.t neccesarily dislike it but you are right about liking it because I learn something new.

[g huns]

quote:

---

This is prol caused by machine slop due to directional change....

---

I got a pretty tight little machine with Fanuc HPPC and scallop paths just tend to leave a crappy finish, at least for me. Haven't tried in X yet. Are they any different? I'm still trying to get that pencil thing to work. I'm gonna cut em some slack till the first MR. Hopefully see some new toolpaths. I've seen some stuff done with other software and for very specific applications, high speed hardmilling for example, there's some stuff out there that's amazing. With an amazing price tag to match. Still don't think there's a better all round package than MC.

[chip]

I've seen a lot of gripes in the past few years. (I've have'nt used MasterCam as long as some of the fella's here). I have defitely learned a bunch here on this forum! So MasterCam (I think) took all those gripes and designed X. Drawing/Designing/Toolpaths in X is of course a transition.

 

The tough thing is executing code. These machines need to run with what we know. I don't feel comfortable leaving a finish toolpath (a couple thou stepover) on an expensive cavity all night long. Especially when I can't get consistant code punched. If the machines are running.... It's tough to experiment with something new.

 

Everytime a new version was introduced. I use to stay at the shop on my own time and experiment with almost every toolpath I could create. (Justifing the time) I would make stuff for myself. (Like Reks sandrail)

 

My brother had a bad (sandsprite with built 1835) sandrail. He kept breaking the stock end cap (shift linkage snout). So I rebuilt the entire part out of 7075 and a stainless bushing that the linkage hooked on to....

 

Anywho... Version 6-7 pretty decent transition.... 7-8 not too tough. for the better. We couldn't even re-gen surfaced toolpaths. Aaaand the computers weren't half as fast as they are now! Programming took twice as long as it should of. Now X. Just another day in the technology world.

 

The more we use these tools. Hopefully the faster more efficient we shall become. With the proper tech support and people to continue offering tips here and there. It SHOULD pay off. I will work on it. This is by far not the easiest transition I've had to make. I use SW also. It's what do as Programmers/Designers/Engineers.... It's tough... This forum should be what your looking for!

[TyK]

Mastercam X is a totally different interface. However it seems to me that for every one frustration I come across, I find two that make it all worth while. I think one of my favs is the scroll wheel pan and zoom. Can't say that enough after much use of CAD that uses that feature as a key. Also the Keymapping and customisation features are a large part of how you experience it. You can almost bend it to your will, make it work for you. Takes a little getting used to and a fair bit of setup, but I feel it was well worth whatever my poor employer had to pay for it. HeHe.

[TOOLDEV]

Thank you for the replies so far, I felt a bit overwhelmed and you have helped me gain a better perspective again. It is difficult to be reduced to a crawl once you have been flying. As far as scallop machining goes, I have the identical transition marks on each of my 5 machining centers. Other packages handle the transition better. Version 9 did the same and I was hoping that X handled this smoother than before.

[Müřlıń®]

quote:

---

It is difficult to be reduced to a crawl once you have been flying.

---

I hear ya there....X has been a tuff transition for me also....I really like alot of the new tools so I am willing to overlook the learning curve

 

 

quote:

---

scallop paths just tend to leave a crappy finish, at least for me

---

What do you mean by crappy?

 

Facuted?

 

As per if X is better.....

 

SP1 made a huge diffrence for me

[g huns]

Yup facetted and very choppy. I can never make a scallop path output arcs, all just tiny lines. On bigger parts I've used it, but most of the work we do is small and when you're using an .040 ball or smaller it's gotta move smoooooth. Much better to use contour with add cuts to shallow areas and that nifty spiral limit button, but hey that's just me.

[LaszloK]

I prefer the windows environment with customizable floating/docking toolbars. This was a good step for CNC. I think the interface would have been cleaner and easier to learn if it had more of a MC flavor. I can't help but think that the interface was written by either someone with no MC experience or by someone looking to make the interface closer to another (perhaps more popular) interface. I would enjoy the learning curve better if there was more consistency. For example: preselection works for some functions but not all, undo works for some functions but not all, some functions stay modal and some you start over in the function. I also think there are many more mouse clicks needed to accomplish tasks. If I had no other MC experience I would really like X.

[Müřlıń®]

I use Scallop with arcs and 2:1 filter...Smooth as silk on tight machines even with .031 dia ball...

 

Perhaps it is some setting that needs to be changed ....

 

 

Murlin teh highjacker....srry TOOLDEV

[chip]

quote:

---

Yup facetted and very choppy. I can never make a scallop path output arcs, all just tiny lines.

---

This is a tough sinereo. It all depends on your machine. If you have a Machine that can't handle the code. It's gonna try to execute ever increment of code.(hense the choppy out come) I tend to program with not just one or two toolpaths. I tend to dice the part up into which toolpath works well for that section of the part. Also some of the old school wireframe toolpaths work well (2d-3d swept. ruled.) If you know how to create these surfaces. These toolpaths run bitchen (Just look out for gouging).

 

If you have a bad a$$ Makino or Mori. Some of these controls are able to run buffers and can read miles of blocks ahead of the cut. The machine executes them in a smooth manner. We have our Haas machines dialed in pretty well. These machines have decent buffers and controls. also they are consistantly tight enough machines to hold tenths. Some of the Mori's run 100k+ same with my Haas. That's fine tuning and practice. 2d and 3d swept will get you (almost) the same out come. 3d swept sometimes will punch miles of code. If your machine can handle it. It will turn out well. Some machines can't cut a circle worth a $hit! We run scallops all night long sometimes. Very generic anwser. I need to see your part to know what your looking for.

[Steel Surgeon]

The worst about X is the calendar!

 

Stages I went through for X

 

 

1)One year ago(or so) when I first heard of X thought it will be cool.

 

2)When I first saw the interface I was freaked!

 

3)Panic was lowered when I got the demo and played with it and realized I can feel my way around it ok.

 

4)Now using it exclusively I am liking it. There are definite bugs still but we will try to work around them.

[gcode]

Look at the gcode and make sure your post is outputting arcs where it should.

In both lathe and mill posts I've noticed the output can be affected by the tolerance settings

in the Control Definition.

I was getting X cooridinates in lathe files off by

.0001 and arcs were coming out as G01 point to point moves in some milling toolpaths.

In both cases changing the

"General math function tolerance" from the default setting of .0001 to .00005 solved the problem.

[g huns]

Where do they hide the math function tolerance. I have system tolerance set to .00005. How small can you safely set the max surface deviation tolerance? .001 is like a mile.

[gcode]

quote:

---

Where do they hide the math function tolerance

---

In the Tolerance section of the Control Definition

[g huns]

got it, thanks. See if does me any good.

[chip]

Thisis in my machine right now. I Scalloped this cavity with my Hass... Quite an impressive machine.

Sorry the pics are'nt the best quality.

[Carl Hessig]

If you are bringing in files from another system you might look to see what the tol. it was output at. We have a makino snc64 and hurco cnc's and the point to point code is the same only difference is the speed at which we cut. Finish is good in either machine. If you set your filter tol. too large trying to get a smaller program you will not get good results.

 

Carl

[Bruce Caulley]

I am liking the programme so far, but I can't believe that some of the obvious bugs/problems that were in the initial release weren't picked up in beta. The issues with graphics cards needing old drivers was one that astounded me.

 

Is it possible that all the beta testers were using the same card??!?!?!?!?!?

 

Were all the beta testers using pre-selection???

 

Did the beta testers ever have a backplot crash???

 

Did the beta testers ever have trouble with stock definition in verify???

 

Yes, I reported some of my issues to [email protected] and they were bugs, not something that needed more "seat time". Others were acknowledged as problems on this forum.

 

I know that the beta testers were selected for their knowledge of MC and their undoubted ability at what they do. I also know that they were selected from a broad range of machining disciplines. I don't want to to be seen to be calling into question their integrity or commitment to the beta programme as they were not ultimately responsible for the release and each would have hade his contribution to any problems he found.

 

Here's the but: I believe that one other thing that they had in common was that they were all possibly MC "fans" and as a result were willing to accept workarounds as a stepping stone to achieve proficiency. Eventually the work arounds turn into a well troden path and are accepted as norm.

 

Maybe some of the beta testers should have been "critics", but I know that finding someone willing to test MC while at the same time not liking it would be a big ask.

 

In answer to the original question, I am not sure. Some of the features are definately better, but on the whole I would say that it is prettier rather than better.

 

Lets hope that the foundation that CNC have laid with this release has something more substantial built on it in the next year or so.

 

Bruce

[chip]

quote:

---

I believe that one other thing that they had in common was that they were all possibly MC "fans" and as a result were willing to accept workarounds as a stepping stone to achieve proficiency. Eventually the work arounds turn into a well troden path and are accepted as norm.

---

Hmmm. I don't know about you... For me. It's a tough thing to do. Changing softwares would be equivelent to changing professions. It's kind of late for me to start going to school to become a physician. It's not too late for me to progress and get my M.E. or at least talk about it.

 

I have too many years using M.C. to change. There is no way I could program half the stuff just sitting down with a new Software (i.e. Gibbs).

 

As far as I know. You can adjust M.C. to suit your needs. You don't like pre-selection... I'm sure there's a toggle to not use it. Graphics card. I have a decent one. It might be a good idea to invest in a decent one. After all we are running cad software.

 

I have had tons of issues with the new MasterCam. I just try to be patient and work them through one problem at a time. Trust me. I hear your frustration. There are tons of archives to dig through... I search and read as much as I can to progress! It doesn't just jump into my head!