Move to solids?

[Toby]

I have been told that MC solids save quite alot of time drawing and has many other benefits. Can anyone confirm it would be well worth it to purchase this add on even if the majority of my work is 2D. Also what have you found to be beneficial over standard wire-frame drafting?

------------------

 

[Trevor Bailey]

Standard wireframe drafting takes to long to construct, unless you import the file. You can create simple or complex 2d flat geometry and then extrude, revolve, etc... in a matter of minutes. Thus saving time with construction and it gives you a great visual reference and in most cases, you can simply click on a face for machining. All of this can be done in a matter of minutes. Extremely fast for "shop floor" fixturing and so forth.

------------------

Trevor Bailey

[email protected]

Dealer

[Toby]

Wow, one response! I was hoping to hear from end users on the speed and effeciency of Solids as this is the holy grail of machining (manufacturing). Does anyone use solids?

------------------

 

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Toby,

Considering that your post has only been up for a few hours, I would not worry that there is only one post.

First off, solids for complex shapes are WAY easier to create and modify. If you want to change a fillet in a surfaced part, you must delete the current fillet, untrim the surface, then refillet and possibly re-trim the surface too. With a solid, you go into the Solids Manager, click on that solids operation, change the fillet in the parameters section and regen the solid and Viola. Now if you already have toolpath on that solid , you can regenerate it in the solids manager too.

For simple pocketing ....... it's a breeze. you dont even need any wireframe geometry, Mastercam picks up the edged from the solid faces, just like that. Time savings abound with solids. Well worth the investment.

James Meyette

 

[CycleTimeCharles]

I find solids very helpful for fixture design. With surfaces drawing one clamp would be at least 10 entities. With a solid it is one entity, so it is much easier to work with.

[fire4]

we have recently purchased solid and i have been using it a little. it is very easy to draw on but i have been having a little trouble programming simple 2d toolpaths but i'm sure with time and some training it will made it alot easier to manufacture the part we make in the aerospace industry

[Kenneth Potter]

Keep in mind that with solids you can extract single surfaces & combine surface with solids,Also trim a solid with a single surface.You can also calculate volume mass with a solid.

 

just my two cents in

[Toby]

Thanks for the input

[Lee.]

I work in the Patternmaking industry and all our work is one off stuff. I have been using Solids for about 18 months now and wouldn't want to use anything else. It is not suitable for really complex shapes but for most stuff it is a real boon. I wouldn't invest my money to do simple 2D work but if you need to do 3D stuff then it's the cats whiskers.

[bryan.davis]

Id reccomend to anybody not already using solids to move to it, however, if you are on a budget and want a good all round CAD/CAM system then I would not avocate using MasterCAM solids.

the trouble with MasterCAM solids is that while it gives you good integration of solids into your CAM environment, Im afraid there is a whole lot more I can buy with the money that MasterCAM solids costs.

The problem is that whilst MasterCAM is an excellent CAM package, as a CAD package it sucks big time, so my advice is to leave MasterCAM solids on the shelf where it belongs and for the same price buy Cadkey99, there is noting MasterCAM solids can do that I cant do in Cadkey, but there is tons of stuff Cadkey can do that MasterCAM solids does not even begin to adress.

 

[This message has been edited by bryan.davis (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Webby]

Byran,

Although we are trying to keep the Forum as 'free-speech' as possible, I'd really hope that we can keep the messages confined to the realm of constructive criticism.

Your message gives no specifics on the tools available in Cadkey that are of value to you. Comments like "there is tons of stuff Cadkey can do" and Mastercam "sucks big time" are of little use when not backed up with specific details. On the other hand, detailed feedback is of great use to help direct feature develop of the product.

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Thank you Webmaster. My sentiments exactly.

James Meyette

[bryan.davis]

sorry for the test post, I wrote this message once already and lost the lot!, so Ill enter it again

Disclaimer

THIS IS ENTIRELY MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION BASED ON 17 YEARS CAD/CAM EXPERIENCE AND THE USE OF OVER A DOZEN CAD AND CAM PACKAGES

I in no way have any connection with the Cadkey corportaion and in fact reccomend the use of MasterCAM to anybody AS A CAM PACKAGE ONLY!

I agree, my critism should be more constructive, however, it would be a shame of this forum were to be a sychophantic marketing tool where anything that dont follow the line of MasterCAM good, all else bad is 'deleted', and since my rather terse comments have attracted some attention then I am obliged to justify them.

The most glaring ommision from MC solids as a CAD package is a layout mode, for the uninitiated, this is where you can simply create a traditional style 2D drawing from the solid model, including scaled views froma any angle, hidden detail views, sectioned views and indeed any of the 'tools' used by traditional 2D draftsmen to comprehensively communicate the design on a 2D drawing, including dimensioning, tolerancing etc. This is an invaluable tool, with it I can create a fully detailed and dimensioned drawing of most any solid modle witin a couple of hours, and I feel that this omission alone seals the argument.

In most cases CK filleting is currently better than MC

MCs dimensioning is very poor (but improving)

With CK+MC you get two separate seats of software that can be used similtaneously by two users on two separate computers for a fraction of the cost of MC alone (2 seats)

Many of the translators that cost extra with MC are standard with CK

since this is my second attempt at writing this I will let others argue the flip side, I will agree to most sensible shortcommings of this combination.

At the end of the day I challenge anybody to create a part in MC solids alone, that I cant create in basic MC+ basic CK, providing they accept the challenge of creating and maching one of my MC+CK parts plus a fully detailed traditional style 2D drawing more efficiently than I.

[This message has been edited by bryan.davis (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Not to "poo poo" your statements about "glaring omissions" but here's my question, if you had to choose(and you do have to choose), what do you want in a CAD/CAM package 1) A great CAM side and a pretty good CAD side or 2) a great CAD side and a pretty good CAM side? Because you do have to choose, you cannot have both. CK cannot be all things to all people and neither can MC.

If Mastercam were to get "too good" with their CAD side and the "Big Boys" (AC, CK, SE, Pro/E etc...)start seeing MC as competitors that would not be a good thing (in my personal opinion).

As a programmer there has never been anything that I (or someone I know)could not create Mastercam.

Granted there is ALWAYS room for improvement in any software package. I do not want to see Mastercam stand still on the CAD side, but, my main area of interest (and that of the VASTmajority of people I speak to is "more toolpaths", "more 5 axis stuff", "GUI Post builder".

That's my personal opinion and I look forward to seeing others' as well on this issue.

James Meyette

[Kenneth Potter]

Ok here my side of it.For some of us here that have worked on the big boy stuff. Spending thousands of hours working with there complex tool sets.You can get spoiled & at the same time get trap up in the over complexity of the software.To the point were you spend more time fighting the system that drawing the part on the screen.

For me there's a time for complexity & a time for simplicity. 90 percent of the time Mastercam Design can do what i want. Know theres room for improvement but belive me the other have there problems to!!!!

If Mastercam makes any inhancement to Design or Solids i hope they wont follow the others & get caught up into the Bells & whistles game ! Keep it simple.

[bryan.davis]

You have hit my point exctly on the head, I did have to chose, and I got better than what you percieve the choices to be.

An all round engineering company that designs and manufactures its own products needs both good CAM and CAD, however, whilst you can afford to cut corners with the CAD, cutting corners with CAM is going to prove costly.

Whilst many users angle is purely as a programer, mine is as a designer, project manager and programmer, I need a suite of software, that allows me to efficiently design any part I need, efficiently machine anything I design, and to be able to effectively communicate my designs to a wide audience, and thats including our customers, their accountant, our subcontactors, our magaging director, and our own toolroom.

With MasterCAM solids alone you get Great CAM and poor CAD (it cant be everything to everybody), however, with MC+CK (for example) for the same price you get great CAM, very good CAD (I wont say great, but it kicks MC into a cocked hat), and the ability to separate your design from production without having to entertain extra cost.

At the end of the day, for people on a budget who need to fulfil an integrated CAD/CAM role MasterCAM solids is overpriced and underperforms, there is nothing in terms of CAM functionality the MC solids gives you, other than save you a few keystrokes, its true that a competent engineer can create most anything in either package, but the real issue is flexibility and efficiency, it may indeed be possible to create any solid model as efficiently as anybody else on any other CAD/CAM suite, but because of MCs current deficiencies as a CAD package you will not be able to produce the complete information package that modern engineering require, in anything like the time that can be achieved with better options.

I very much looked forward to MCs solids release, and when I got the trial version I went through the entire tutorial book, both with both MC and CK, and then tried a number of our more challenging CK modles in MC, what I found was unimpressive, some fuctions worked better in MC, some better in CK, the benefits of parametrics is overestimated, you are still stuck with MCs very poor CAD tools, and you get none of the invaluable CK tools, and faced with the option of buying MC solids or another seat of CK, there was quite frankly no competition.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

When you say that "Solids only saves you a few keystrokes" I'd have to heartily disagree with that. Mastercam with Solids makes toolpath WAY easier. For ex. I have a Solid Part (with NO wireframe because the Engineer forget to include it) with pockets at multiple depths, previously in Version 7 I had to re-create the wireframe, then chain each pocket. Now with Version 8 that same part(with no wireframe mind you), I just pick the floors' face and the depth info is already gathered from the Solid Database. This is a much better system that the old way.

To effectively deal with "Engineering/Development" Issues I believe a "Pure" CAD package better fits the Application as would most readers. I tend to favor Programmers not working on "Original" Files, "Just In Case", if you know what I mean . But, to come and bash the Product (Mastercam) because it fails, in your opinion, to be a robust enough CAD package and not give some specific examples of how it could be made better is not really productive.

Parametrics are a very important aspect of CAD (and CAM for that matter) it's benefits, if anything are clearly understated. You must not model assemblies. If you change a part in the assembly and that change affects other components don't you want to know about it?

With regard to buying another seat of MC or another seat of CK, which will make you more money? That's the one you should go with in my opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me like you want MasterCAM to be MasterCAD. Is this a fair observation?

James Meyette

[This message has been edited by James Meyette (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Kenneth Potter]

I also own a seat of CK & it Has its side of cam called Fast Nurbs & to me its weak ! Great cad.... very poor Cam. No comparison to Mastercam .I stop using it in less than a month.

[This message has been edited by Kenneth Potter (edited 10-31-2000).]

[bryan.davis]

Yes, Ck does have a bolt on CAM package, but dont make me laugh, its a nothing compared to MasterCAM, and like I said before, cutting corners on CAM is something that gets regretted very quickly!

Engineeers not including the wireframe data being a problem?!? MasterCAM is weaker than I thought!, CK solution is a simple Click and et volia you have all the wireframe data you need, (Im sure thats possible in MC too though.... create-curve-edge curve off top of head), besides machining complicated pockets isnt really a challenge to standard MC anyway especially if you machine it as a multisurface pocket bounded by its own edge curves, and all youve said is in effect that the solids saved you a few minutes on one job.

Yes pure CAD is better to effectively deal with engineering issues, thats what Im saying, and programmers should never be allowed to go anywhere near the original CAD data anyway.

 

we do in fact do some very complicated assemblies, but still, parametrics are not an important aspect of CAD in anyway, anybody who has used both parametrics and non parametric systems should know that, parametrics is better in some application, but the examples you quote sounds exactly like the tradeshow patter that I see parametrics salesmen use to impress you, however, what gets forgotten is that those 'great' examples are the result of many hours of work, planning and practice, given the same motivation of these guys Im damn sure I could make AutoCAD look great in a 10 minute demo (and you dont want to get me started on AutoCAD!). Those advantages are only valid up to the point that in order to achieve the functionality you state you have to put a lot extra of work and planning into the assembly in order to achieve that kind of relationship between components, and if you are doing that for a design mod that you may have to make at a late date in the project, it shows a very poor project management.

MC vs CK in respect to making the most money, well thats not really the issue, however, MC solids Vs CK the answer is CK everytime, in the past year work done on CK has secured us a lot of orders, which meant that Im having to train other people in the use of MC, and maybe need to buy a second seat, however, had we used MC solids, and bought a second MC solids just to satisfy the CAD role then as a company our future may not be looking quite so bright!

"You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me like you want MasterCAM to be MasterCAD. Is this a fair observation?"

Close but not quite, Ive had MasterCAM salesmen try and sell me a "MasterCAD" package under the guise of MasterCAM design, is there anybody (other than MasterCAM) who would reccomend that we use MC design+ solids (circa £3,000 off top of head) as the basis of an engineering CAD package?

Dont get me wrong, if MasterCAM want to beome a serious contender in the CAD market then great, if they could show me a pakage that gives me all the CAD fuctionality (at reasonable cost) I already have then I would scrap CK without question and go for the more streamlined integration an all round MasterCAM/D would give, but sadly as a CAD package MC has a long way to go, and I stand by my original blunt statements!

 

[johns]

We have used Mastercam & Cadkey here for over 10 years. There are strengths in Cadkey as a design package, but in the past three years, I have been in the position of checking all designs using MC Design before it goes out to the mills. The past two years I have also done design of our injection molds. Most of our data is supplied in Iges from customers and over 75% are not complete in Cadkey, but are in MC. I also feel that there are features that MC is missing as a design package. However, I am also the person that visits the Cadkey forum for feedback on problems. We have experienced the same things as most forum subjects report in Cadkey, Files corrupted ( empty ), memory and stability problems. Our Cadkey guy has lost many weeks of work the past 2 years. As much as we discuss features and speed, reliability is our first priority. To date, all of our solids have been designed in Cadkey, and ALL of these jobs had to be redone in MC before being passed on to the Mill 3. After 10 years of using both inhouse, we find that when something is too involved in 3D for Cadkey, it comes to MC to make it work. For us, Cadkey makes the pictures for the customer, Mastercam makes the real tool.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I don't believe Mastercam wants to be a contender in the CAD world. It's not their main focus. It seems to me (as an user) that the CAD side gives me just enough design tools for me to take a print and produce a part, even maybe design a fixture around that part.

Design with Solids serves a purpose. Granted, it may not be the most economical choice but truth be told, Mastercam is one of the easiest packages to draw in. The menu structure is better than anything I 've ever tried (and yes I've tried CK). Drawing in 3D is not a chore like in other packages I've tried.

If you've got some specific improvement ideas, we'd sure like to hear them. I know I'm all ears.

James Meyette

[bryan.davis]

Yup, had all those problems, some of MCs translators are more reliable than CK, and I do tend to use the MC IGES translator in preference to CK when exporting files to sub contract, Ive found the best combination is to design parts and tools in CK, create 2D drawings and artwork in CK, import the lot into MC using parasolids or SAT- CADL is best if you only want wireframe data - for bolsters that is all you ever need, and then create the iges export files in MC. The process sounds long winded, but is a breeze with macros.

Being a company that designs our own components, makes out own tools and molds out own parts means that we rarey have to deal with data imports, were we in that position then for the most part the process would be reversed, there are some surfaces generated in MC that are hard to import into CK, but so far Ive found solutions 100% of the time.

 

 

[Kenneth Potter]

Here a simple enhancement . How about Orient"Align" 2pt & 3pt with scaling & copy options.

[Toby]

I didn't mean to open a can of worms! with personal opinions aside it looks as though mc solids can get the job done if mostly used on the cam end. My company has invested in a number of sinle seat cad packges like Pro-e and Mechanical Desktop and these are quite expensive and involved to learn. We are now looking at yet another package, Solid Works, to use more company wide. My question is how does Solid Works compare to CadKey? Our inspection department uses solids to program the cmm's and we also have a small need for design work in Engineering. Our ultimate goal is to streamline our "heinz 57" of current cad/cam packages and get on the same page.

------------------

 

[Kenneth Potter]

Yes you did open a can of worms & a bottle of asprin. If your looking at solid works "4000$". Then you'll see a big difference in tools & dimensioning .Oh yea youll get a kick out of there E-file veiwer.

[This message has been edited by Kenneth Potter (edited 10-31-2000).]