Maintenance expiring

[Guest]

quote:

---

Since you're dropping UG what are you replacing it with, SolidWorks??

---

Yes, that is what we have been evaluating for several months.

 

PDMWorks which they offer looks fairly simple for the moderate computer user to admin and seems to be more reliable than Teamcenter. We have found we can take my existing MC models and reimport them into Solidworks and reparameterize them. Since we are moving from a 2D paper system, into UG for about years, now towards Solidworks In this deal I am even going to get a seat of Solidworks, no more sharing a free seat. I have also been building our 3D libary of parts as I program from the old paper drawings. So they want me designing in the same system and working out of the database.

 

Now I was reading something just the other about MasterCam direct for Solidworks. On the surface they claim the ability to maintain associativity back and forth. Does anyone know if this is true? I have not seen this applied as of yet.

 

[ 11-25-2005, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: jmparis ]

[gcode]

quote:

---

On the surface they claim the ability to maintain associativity back and forth

---

Solidworks Direct can export a model from SolidWorks into Mastercam. It will create geometry

in Mastercam to support all the extrusions and revolves from your SolidWorks file.

This geometry will be associative to your Mastecam Solids features

If you have labeled your features in SolidWorks

the labels will carry over to your Mastercam Solids tree. Every generation of SolidWorks Direct gets more and more powerful.

Originally, it could only do simple stuff with the more comples solids coming in dumb. Now it

cane bring pretty complex models.

It is not fully associative however.

You can't go back to SolidWorks from Mastercam

and if change your model in Solidworks you will have to start over in Mastercam.

SolidWorks has a feature called Coordiante System.

You can define multiple CS's to a part and export the part as a parasolid, IGES, STL, STEP etc.

During the export proccess you can attach the CS

to the export file.

If you Save As a parasolid and define a CS, when you open the the file in Mastercam it will be origined and oriented per the SolidWorks CS.

I have asked Mastercam to include this feature

into SolidWorks Direct and they are looking into it for the next revision

[Guest]

Thanks for the info.

 

quote:

---

In a program like UG, Catia or even Camworks,

all my toolpaths would automatically update to reflect that change. In Mastercam I have to delete the old solids, re-import the new ones and rework all the toolpaths affected by the change.

---

Just to be clear on this point from a UG standpoint only. UG will not update the affected tool path, what it will do is show up with a symbol showing that the toolpath is out of date to the model. You then have to regenerate the toolpath. If it is a fairly complex toolpath depending on how it changed, you could very well have to redo the affected toolpaths in UG also.

 

Associativity is nice but it is not all that they claim it is.

[gcode]

Jim,

check your email,

I sent you a simple SW assembly that illustrates

the export of WCS's into Mastercam

[Guest]

gcode, back at cha'

[DrewG]

GCODE QUOTE "In SolidWorks, I can be on the last operation of a 4 operation part and discover that I need to move a tooling tab a 1/2 inch. If I've designed

my stuff properly, I can change one number

and the tooling tab will move along with the clamp attached to it and all the holes and hardware associated with that clamp.

In a program like UG, Catia or even Camworks,

all my toolpaths would automatically update to reflect that change. In Mastercam I have to delete the old solids, re-import the new ones and rework all the toolpaths affected by the change.

If I could find a software with the power and fexibility on Mastercam that ran inside SolidWorks, I'd be gone in a flash. They havn't built it yet, but I check out every new one that comes along."

 

GCODE,-I belive "Solidcam" which is manufactured by Solidworks and IS the fastest growing CAM software company today(CIMDATA 2005), will do exactly what I believe you are looking for(myself included). It runs inside Solidworks, and will update the toolpath (by regeneration, just as UG) as you've requested. You can download a DEMO at their site, or send or for a CD. I believe you have to have a seat of Solidworks for it to work though. With the amount of seats of Solidworks out there, I believe if their CAM product is as good, they will quickly become the "KING OF CAD/CAM". They state they can handle everything including 2-5 axis toolpaths, turn/mill's, and wire EDM

Here's the link:

 

www.solidcam.com

[Guest]

Drew,

 

SolidCam is a company out of Israel.

 

It has no CAD abilities, you need to have a CAD system to be able to create anything. It will run inside of Solidworks, Inventor and one or 2 others that don't come to mind right this minute. I am running the demo of now. It appears to be a decent system so far.

 

 

Bentley Microstation Modeler is the 3rd system it will run with.

 

[ 11-25-2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: jmparis ]

[nor draw]

I love that quote from Ford, but from a fairly new mc user I can only complament this forum and the outstanding support related to this product.

[DrewG]

As for PDM works (from Solidworks), we use it and it has worked out excellent!!! UG's equivilent is called "Teamcenter", and it is costly. I belive you would have to have an IT guy around constantly to maintain it as well. Very complicated. It's really geared towards very large companies who have hundred's or thousands of seats at their various facility's. Picture it this way: Boeing has 100 companies around the globe manufacturing their parts, with Teamcenter, they can all access them, update them, etc.. It's a way to store all the CAD/CAM, FEA, FEM, etc.. on a "worldwide network". This is wayyyy overkill unless your working at a similar type company.

UG said it would run me about 35K for them to set up Teamcenter for my business, or I could send one of my guys to training for it for two weeks.

[gcode]

Drew,

SolidCam is a standalone company.

It is a "SolidWorks Gold Partner" as is Mastercam

Camworks and Surfcam.

I downloaded it and worked my way through it a couple of months ago Its good stuff, but no where near as versitle as Mastercam. When you're already using the best, the challengers have a rough row to hoe.

I do agree with you that a CAM package fully associative with SolidWorks will one day rule the CAM world.

[CAM-mando]

Gcode and John,

 

I am still slumming with V9.1, no maintenence. I made the decision 2 years ago to stay put at V9.1 and re-evaluate all options at the end of 2006. Changing company needs, other potential competitive products, X unknowns etc. all played into the decision.

 

I have not even gotten an X demo yet.

 

One thing I am curious about is the CAD side of X. How is it compared to 9.1 ?

 

For larger companies or companies with "real" Engineering departments, It is usually one of the big 3 or Solidworks.

 

I, like Gcode do all my design and modeling outside of Mastercam then bring it in for programming only. Usually once I bring the model into MC, I don't do it again. If a change is needed I make it both in MC and in the design file.

 

For smaller companies or companies that are primarily manufacturers, it seems to me that if CNC bolstered the CAD side of the product, they could provide an integrated solution for many customers. Maybe I am over simplifying the task of providing a more complete CAD package, but it sure seems like an obvious oppurtunity to me. I realize that it may not be practical to maintain the kind of development that would put CNC on the leading edge of CAD technology, but if they were to roughly keep step with the state of the art in CAD, I would think there would be many companies like ours that would abandon at least some seats of other products in favor of MC Design seats which would intigrate their design and manufacturing data.

 

As for the comparison of other CAM programs and all that, a huge factor is the type of work you do. For example the OneCNC demo video's *appear* to indicate that it supports 5 axis trunions specifically and the the demo was mostly positioning. If this is the case, there are obvious limitations for more complex work.

 

If your work is all 2 1/2 axis stuff with occasional surfaceing some of the other products that are already windows based and are cheaper are probably not a bad choice.

 

Once those newer programs stabilize their user base though I would expect to see maintenence. The cash flow generated during growth in market share is one thing, but eventually that begins to level out and in order to generate revenue for development, I believe maintenence will become a neccessity for those products too.

 

BTW, although it took a turn toward pissing contest I found this thread very enlightening.

[Guest]

Well first off CAM,

 

The drawing side of mastercam, I don't really think we can call it design because of obvious limitations, has gotten quite bit better than was available in V9. It is more intuitive to what you are doing. Not as much as higher end systems but the change is noticable.

 

With that being said it does not handle "assemblies" and such, though you can bring in an entire assembly, manipulating it is another thing.

 

As you have read there is still no option for associativity to an outside CAD, this would be a huge upgrade to MC all by itself.

 

But I will quote myself in an email earlier today about this very topic.

 

quote:

---

You know *****, I think I might just agree with you about the 2nd tier software.

More and more companies are moving towards full "design" packages, where

parametric modeling and advanced associativity play a big part in the manipulation of the models.

If CNC does not either expand their ability or get on board with someone else's, then I would

think that could quite realistically happen.

 

The CAM market has changed dramatically from what it was 10 yrs ago. CNC hung on too long to the old

interface and now they are truly playing catch up in many respects.

---

As much as I am a loyal MC user, the above I see as a possibility if the market continues it's direction. BTW, I was talking 10 yrs down the road, not tomorrow.

 

quote:

---

Once those newer programs stabilize their user base though I would expect to see maintenence. The cash flow generated during growth in market share is one thing, but eventually that begins to level out and in order to generate revenue for development, I believe maintenence will become a neccessity for those products too.

---

Agreed, with the pace of development today it will happen to all companies eventually or they will be outpaced by other companies that maintain a constant source of income even during non-release periods.

[Gary]

I won't be surprised if solidworks doesn't come out with its own cam software like the big three or buy out and intregrate someones elses software. They have the revenue to do so and that would really set them out of the other mid-range modelers.jmo

[Guest]

You have to remember who owns Solidworks, Dassault Systems, owners also of Catia. Would they want to create what I and others think could be a "King" to a vast majority of shops and take a chance to hurt their flagship?

 

I dunno.

 

I think for that to take place someone would have to bid Solidworks away from them first.

 

Now intergrating hmmm, what could be accomplished with Solidworks power and Mastercams ability?

 

A fleeting thought I suspect but a nice one for sure.

[gcode]

SolidWorks has 300,000 seats out there.

I believe 1/2 of them are on maintenance

150,000 x $1500 per year = $225 mil per year.

Can't thnk of any CAM companies stepping up to that plate

MasterWorks does have a nice ring to it though

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

jmparis:

 

I suspected early on that there would be ruffled feathers but I never thought it would go on so long.

 

Hey, what's the record for most posts in one thread ?

[Guest]

It's over 1,000 so we got a loooooog way to go.

 

There's thread in the OT forum up around 975 right now.

 

With so many of us being uneducated it took awhile to get our points across I think.

 

 

BTW Matt,

 

Have you gleaned any information about what you might like or perhaps not look at for software?

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

We are only considering OneCNC if that's what you mean. No other software...

 

And I've been so busy I haven't really got my teeth into it yet...

[Guest]

I have a good friend that is a CFO at a window manufacturing plant is LA. He and I were talking one day about how you decide to keep a project alive. One we were talking about was an R & D project they currently were working on. He said when considering existing projects you shouldn’t focus on the past costs. They can never be recovered. Instead focus on the future costs and revenues. I think this also applies to cad/cam software. The software company is not going to give you your money back. But you should consider what your future costs are going to be with either you current system or a new system. Because the future costs will defiantly affect you future revenues.

[Greg Williams]

quote:

---

Instead focus on the future costs and revenues. I think this also applies to cad/cam software.

---

Mark,

 

At the end of the day this is the question that needs to be answered, And it applies to just about everything.

[DrewG]

"Instead focus on the future costs and revenues. I think this also applies to cad/cam software."

 

I am a perfect example of that. A smaller shop with three different CAM systems, and about 100K wrapped up in them. I could've saved about 40K when I purchased a new system to run my machines, including the mill/turn, by sticking with Mastercam, and spending a million hours editing code at the machine. It is possible to produce code using Mastercam to run these mill/turns. However, the amount of time I saved by having a CAM system that could post directly to the the machine without having to edit at the control, and also offered simulation to avoid costly "crashes" paid for itself rather quickly. The machine is making my parts, while we're programming the next part. If I had stayed with Mastercam, the machine would spent alot of time being used for writing and testing the program, rather than machining the part. This "downtime" adds up quickly when you have alot of parts to program.

Everyone knows if your machine isn't cutting chips, it's not making you money.

I am always looking at new software, and have no allegence to any one brand. If I find something that in the long term will enable me to produce parts quicker, I'll spend my money again, and add to my list of CAM software seats.

[Matt Berube at Ferron Mold]

quote:

---

Changing Cad/Cam software is a lot like getting a divorce. You're about to trade your faithful

40 year old in on 2 20's

They may look good and they may be a whole lot of fun, but in the end you'll come crawling home

---

quote:

---

I expect that you'll be back, poorer for the knowledge, Keep us up to date. I'd really like to know how OneCNC works out for you.

---

I'm back !

We are going to stick with Mastercam.

 

I truly was totally impressed with about 90% of OneCNC. There were, however some things I couldn't get into. Most notably:

1. There are no "Z" depths on their setup sheet. For me, proofreading the setup sheet is an important way for me to make sure I've done the job correctly. The operators sure like to see the depth too.

2. After you chain up something to cut, you can't "re-chain", "add chain", "reverse chain". You can only adjust the parameters of the operation.

3. There's only 1 tool library. That's it... You can't add any more. Of course you can add to the library or even download a very large one but it's nice to be able to use diff libraries. They also do not remember depth of cut for your tools so you're constantly guessing aboout stepdowns,etc.

4. We had a hard time getting some files into the software. I don't know if their translator was the problem or if MC's converter was the culprit but they could use a .xt translator.

 

They do have a great forum with some very helpful people.

 

It seems like they developed an amazing 3-d toolpath system but dropped the ball on a number of simple things

 

I intend to hit Mastercam harder this time and maybe actually go to some classes and pick up some tricks. It's really amazing what you can pick up from watching somebody else for a while...

[Guest]

Well Matt, it's nice to see you come in off the ledge.

 

[DrewG]

JMPARIS--Now all you need to do is "get me back" (using Mastercam)(LOL). You never know. If they get their MATTS going, I'll be first in line.

 

Congrat's on your decision Matt!!!

[P_Scott]

SRT Mike,

 

quote:

---

Well, we havent bought OneCNC XR yet. I want to try out X before I make a final decision. Right now I am leaning towards XR because I havent seen anything it cant do that MCAM can do, and I have not heard anything to explain why MCAM is worth the extra money. THen again, I havent tried X and when I do, maybe I will really like it.

---

This topic has really evolved so that I think there is a lot of good information here. I hope you make an informed decision about the software you decide to use. Contact me if you have any questions or need info about Mcam.

 

DrewG,

 

quote:

---

Do you service the New Jersey area???

---

Sorry to get back so late to your reply. Unfortunately we don't provide service beyond the New England area. I'm sorry to hear that your experiences with Cimco were so disappointing. Frank and Glenn are two people I have a lot of respect for when it comes to Cimco. Frank always stresses the importance of using the best hardware and it seems that your experiences reinforce that philosophy. Glenn is extremely competent and professional. Continue to communicate with him and don't get discouraged from using Cicmo. HTH