Mastercam CAD usage Survey

[cadcam]

quote:

---

Surfcam includes a PDO (part design only) version of solidworks with any 3 axis or higher purchase.

 

It would be great is Mcam could work out a deal like that.

---

I hope they don't as I like the power of SW but I want to be able to make my solid modal inside mastercam an cut it from there.

 

I do not want to be like surfcam were you make it in SW and them bring the Surface modal into the cam side. How dum is that.

[gcode]

quote:

---

How dum is that

---

Not too dumb.. SolidWorks is so much more powerful than Mastercam Design that the import hassles are worth it. I hardly know how to use Mastercam solids anymore, I do it all in Solidworks.

[Greg Williams]

Hi All,

 

Some intersting comments above

I have been lucky enough to use a parametric system for many years now and I can asure you that while parametric modeling and Machining has some advantages it also some downfalls. I am by no means trying to spoil the party here and these comments are just based on my experience that's all

 

Lets take a real world example,

 

Lets say you design a cylinder head in the parametric cad side. we can use all of the cool tools such as formulas and sketchs to get our inlet tract flowing along some nicely generated splines. we can come back to any section change the values and everything updates (Fingers crossed) we can also use the drafting module to take sections across the tract and check the surface area and inletoutlet flow. Ok all good so far now lets do some machining

 

First it is decision time do we,

 

1, add the CAM to the part file - sounds like a good idea but very quickly that single file with CAD CAM and Drafting will be huge. Also if it is part of an assembly there may be issues

 

2, add the CAM to the assembly file - Need to be carefull here as there may be no link to the part file

 

3, Create a new file just for CAM - Good idea but we need to be sure that there is a link to the part file and that the link does not fall over, Also if the part file is opened changed and then not saved will the cam file be marked dirty? The biggest issue arises when the part file is changed and has some surfaces added, these surfaces will then need to be added to the CAM file. If any surfaces are removed and they have been used as check or clearance items then will the CAM regerate to the programmers intent?

 

I would like to see the option of removing parametric parameters from parts and also having parametric and dumb lines curves and surfaces sometimes it is just easier to import a new file and a set of toolpaths from a library and start again.

 

Just my 2 cents worth on this issue

[Greg Williams]

James,

 

On another note,

 

Try doing a Right Hand thread from top to bottom in R17?

 

Now change it to Bottom to top and see what happens

[FLIPPER™]

Im in

[gcode]

quote:

---

Now change it to Bottom to top and see what happens

---

a wild guess....

your ID thread gets changed to an OD thread???

 

and your thread mill and part get junked ????

[Bruce Caulley]

Parametric and assemblies is the way to go, but for a CAM focused package I will reluctantly agree that this could cause more grief than it is worth IF the work environment is a "pump out as many programmes per day as you can" workshop. So here is what I would consider a good compromise:

 

1. Sketching should be parametric with the option of being able to "dumb it down" a little i.e the 2d emulator in SW that was intended for Autocad users.

 

2. Rather than having an assembly file that references external files have the ability to treat solid bodies within the file as if they were an assembly. I.e. I want to be able to use assembly mates and constraints rather than xform/rotate.

 

3. 2d drawings/prints must be in another window and update when changes are made. Again to keep it simple this window should be within the one file.

 

 

The above should keep the majority of the user base happy by giving some high end tools without the headache of assembly file relations. It should also soothe the "I want MC to run in SW" crowd. ( I am a life member of that club)

 

Bruce

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Greg,

 

Have not tried to switch it yet. Will do when I get the chance. But, my guess is the same as gcode's.

 

Assembly relations can be a nightmare and for the uninitiated it will become too cumbersome and people will just get pissed.

 

By Parametric I myself am meaninng it would be nice to just sketch features, constrain them and build your solid model from that. No more than that because if you get into more than that then you're getting more involved than is necessary to get parts programmed and becoming more like CATIA, UG, etc.... It does take about 25% or more longer to model a part parametrically(sp?) which is definitely a bad thing.

[gcode]

quote:

---

It does take about 25% or more longer to model a part parametrically

---

Based on my limited experieince with Catia, I'd have to agree with this. I've found Catia quite cumbersome, but I expect that will improve with experience.

SolidWorks is another matter.

I can build a part in SolidWorks, fixture it

and import it into Mastercam in half the time

I can with Mastercam solids.

The more complex the part, the truer this becomes.

The beauty of SolidWorks is the easy of editing.

 

You're halfway through a project and you realize

that you've misplaced a tooling tab.

If you've modeled it properly you can move the tab

the bolt and bolt hole in the fixture all by changing one dimension.

My dream is true assocativity with CAM, then all the toolpaths would move as well.

[jon_banquer]

No reason CNC Software can't give the MasterCAM user the option to use parametrics rather than forcing those who don't wish to use parametrics to use them. The drawback is that when you make changes the model / assembly might not automatically rebuild... so what. If someone wants this they can use something like SolidWorks.

 

A much stronger CAD package for MasterCAM should mean that MasterCAM can grab a larger market share than they have now and should be priority one.

 

Jon Banquer (Who let him in here? )

Phoenix, Arizona

[Bob W.]

I have a seat of ProE with the ProNC package which is a complete assembly modeling CAD/CAM package. The problem is that the CAM portion of it is such a pain in the @ss that it was worth the cost of Mastercam for the CAM side of things. It would be really cool if a company could get something to do both things really well.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

quote:

---

...Jon Banquer (Who let him in here?

)

---

LOL!!!

 

I would HOPE people don't want kinnematics(sp?) and the like in their CAM software. That would totally detract from the core mission of the software - program macines to cut parts.

 

I'm thinking I would like to see MC have an external file for toolpath stuff (similar to CATIA's CATProcess) so that your toolpath does not bog down the Model when it gets on the large side. I would think Moldmakers would suffer from this system lag more than any other group but perhaps the large Aero Structures also suffer.

 

True Multi-Threading is also something I want to see implemented. As high-end workstations continue to come down in price, it's quite economical to own a Multiple CPU System these days.

 

Write MC as a 64 bit App. (I know I'm talking years but hey, since we're making suggestiong, what the heck)

 

Somewhere Pete Rimkis is planning to send explosives to my house I know... j/k

[Bruce Caulley]

quote:

---

Somewhere Pete Rimkis is planning to send explosives to my house I know...

---

Naah..he'll just get out the HAMMER!!

[William Grizwald]

"I would HOPE people don't want kinnematics(sp?) and the like in their CAM software. That would totally detract from the core mission of the software - program macines to cut parts."

 

I couldn't disagree more. We cut some very large parts in very tight work envelopes. The goal is to make a program that will work within that machines limitations. C axis gantrys and big fixtures on horizontals come to mind...

 

But, as I said before, the core MC user is busting out many programs a day/week. And don't have those issues.

 

--

Bill

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Kinnematics for "ASSEMBLY" purposes is what I'm talking about, NOT for machine simulation. Completely different animals. We need machine simulation.

[gcode]

quote:

---

We need machine simulation

---

They didn't demo it at the X2 Seminar I attended

last month, but some of the menu options were interesting when they were showing off X2_MR1

beta

[Bruce Caulley]

We already have a pretty good machine simulator that is now free for all maintenance customers. Why I don't hear of more people using it is a mystery to me...

 

Bruce

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

It's a pain to set up.

[jon_banquer]

"I would HOPE people don't want kinnematics(sp?) and the like in their CAM software. That would totally detract from the core mission of the software - program macines to cut parts."

 

Could not agree more.

 

I would hope that CNC Software is aware that a CAD program like SolidWorks is really a general purpose CAD program and that this opens the door for a CAD package that is easier and more effective to use for a machinist when your main purpose is not all out design but to machine what you create.

 

Does anyone here really think that a balls to the walls design CAD package in MasterCAM is really even possible at this point? I don't. I think this is an unrealistic goal for MasterCAM at this point in time.

 

I think resources could be better spent making wireframe (already decent progress has been made on wireframe) solid and surface creation faster and easier than it is in say SolidWorks. I guess I'm thinking that having a CAD package in MasterCAM that in some ways is similar to what Rhino offers might be much better received in the marketplace rather than yet another "me to" modeler.

 

I think IronCAD's concept of a non-modal type sketcher would work well in MasterCAM. Personally, I really hate being forced into a seperate zone just to sketch. I think it's an outdated concept.

 

Jon Banquer

Phoenix, Arizona

 

[ 12-07-2006, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: jon_banquer ]

[CH]

My 2 cents. Not all of us need or want an extravagant solid modeling cad / cam system. We want fast and easy cam. We have a staff of cad people who’s job it is to provide us with good models. Leave modeling to the cad software. We do simple 2D work ( shape and drill ) 99% of the time and normally work with wire frame as it’s much faster and easier to edit if you need to. The only thing we use the drawing tools for are creating toolpaths manually and creating boundaries for pockets. Other than that all of the drawing tool buttons are just in the way. If anything there should be a dumbed down version for 2D Drilling work. That said , it would be nice to be able to bring a solids work part in and have MC recognize what has been chaneged and then give you the option to update your toolpaths automatically..

 

IMO

[gcode]

quote:

---

That said , it would be nice to be able to bring a solids work part in and have MC recognize what has been chaneged and then give you the option to update your toolpaths

---

this feature was introduced in X2. It should be even more robust in X2_MR1

[Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc.]

"...It should be even more robust in X2_MR1..."

 

Make that...

 

"...It will be even more robust in X2_MR1..."

 

Among the improvements will be...

 

1) An option to re-orient the incoming file. For instance, if you typically rotate/translate your CAD files before putting toolpaths on them, this will let you do the same to the incoming file before finding the differences and similarities.

 

2) Automatic re-assignment of toolpaths which use common geometry to now use the incoming geometry. For instance, if you've put 2 pockets on a part and then read in a new part where only one of the pocket's underlying geometry has changed, the other pocket will be modified to point at the new geometry, making it easier to clean up unused geometry. This worked reasonably well for non-solids based toolpaths in X2, but now it'll actually work properly with solids too

 

3) Handling of lathe ops which are made using 'automatically generated' solid profiles.

 

4) Basic improvement to the handling of solids in general.

 

(Watch out Pete's making promises he better be able to keep)

[William Grizwald]

"...Kinnematics for "ASSEMBLY" purposes is what I'm talking about, NOT for machine simulation. Completely different animals. We need machine simulation."

 

Got it. That does bring up the issue that for simulation to work efficiently your going to need some sort of assembly structure. I used machine simulation in another cadcam system and loved it. I now use it only in Vericut. While very nice as well, I'd prefer to see it on the cam side.

 

--

Bill

[Jim at Gentex]

quote:

---

We already have a pretty good machine simulator that is now free for all maintenance customers.

---

We do?

 

That's news to me!

 

Details?

 

Thanks.

[Don S at Barefoot CNC South]

Jim

Here ya go

Link