Mastercam Graphics Questions

[gcode]

quote:

---

when I click on it I don't get the big list of cad

softwares to choose from

---

Rick, the new Quadro Control Panel sux IMO

Click on

"Manage 3D Settings"

 

I leave my main setting at SolidWorks, then use

the

"Program Setting" tab to add special conditions

to Mastercam.

[Thee Rickster ™]

JP

 

I think the new driver is more efficient

but then again I only made a few rest path this morning.

 

The only time I use shading is to see if my mold

design has missing surfs.

 

Thanks for the speedy reply

 

OFF now to get the kids their FLU shots

 

LATER

 

quote:

---

Licensed huh?

---

Certifiable....Evan!

[Thee Rickster ™]

GCode

 

I only see the dessault systemes Solid works

 

Is that the one?

.

 

Gotta go, I'll check in later

 

Thanks

Rick

[gcode]

quote:

---

dessault systemes Solid works

---

Yes Catia and SolidWorks are owned by the same

company

[iowajim62]

quote:

---

The Techsoft HOOPS graphics engine would create much better and much faster graphics for Mastercam.

---

Did you send this enhancement request to your reseller or to CNC ? If not why talk about it here ? You can't expect changes of that scope to occur because of a discussion on a users forum. Then again if you are only here to dis the product and talk about all the perceived shortcomings of the product maybe you oughta just bow out now. And if your so saavy why is it you can't even use the quote feature properly ? You really are just looking silly. After 5 years on here people like you that come in here just make me laugh.

 

quote:

---

I KNOW who this fool is, I knew the other day.

---

Kinda like a turd that won't flush.

Had a hunch meself bout who it is, suprized teh owl has not been tearin this up yet

[Steve Hattori]

After reading through this post, I find myself in agreement with the people who think Mcam's graphics engine is too slow...being that I don't know anything about the nuts and bolts of which graphics engine is being used, I can only say that I usually post my program into Cimco Edit 5 and generate a solid model there from my code. The model it produces is much more accurate and detailed than the verify model Mcam makes, and it takes seconds to generate, not multiples of minutes.

I have no idea why it is that way, but its very frustrating. This is on a computer that runs the benchmark in 5 minutes, so its not that slow, and we have Quadro FX3400 card.

Regardless of the machine, the relative difference in speed and accuracy are my main complaints with Mcam. My inexpensive editor should NOT be better and faster than X2 L3 Adv5x.(licensed )

I agree with Gcode, that I would trade processing speed for pretty pictures, but I want a quality verify of my toolpath, without waiting a half hour for it. The model I get now looks like somebody cut the part with a chisel...

[Hardmill]

quote:

---

a reincarnantion of JB perhaps??

---

Prolly just the same...

quote:

---

turd that won't flush.

---

..as he always is.

 

 

PEACE

[JJ_8]

/After reading through this post, I find myself in agreement with the people who think Mcams graphics engine is too slow.../

 

No doubt about it. Not only speed but quality is a major problem as well.

 

<img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D36%252F36_33_7/image.gif">

 

:squawk:

Got try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

Gotta try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

 

 

[JJ_8]

/Yes Catia and SolidWorks are owned by the same

company/

 

Both products use the Techsoft HOOPS graphics engine.

 

 

<img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D36%252F36_33_7/image.gif">

 

:squawk:

Got try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

Gotta try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

 

 

[gcode]

quote:

---

Both products use the Techsoft HOOPS graphics engine

---

And annual maintenace for SW and Catia is a significantly higher percentange of purchase

price than Mastercam maintenance. HOOPS is a beautiful graghics engine, but it comes at a price.

How many Mastercam owners are willing to pay higher costs for pretty eyecandy???

IMO Mastercam does the job just fine already.

I do have complaints with MC's graphics,

but I'm not willing to drag my wallet out to fix them.

[gcode]

quote:

---

people who think Mcams graphics engine is too slow

---

especially when you're running a $60 GeForce

gaming card

Mastercam is slow with low end gaming cards

SolidWorks will barely function.. go to

the SW support site and read the minimum specs

on graphics cards.

You are going to spend $500 or $600 on a graphics

card to get the bare minimum that will support

SW's RealGraphics.

My old computer had a $1500 AGP8X Nvidia FX-3000

That card will NOT support SolidWorks RealGraphics.

[iowajim62]

quote:

---

No doubt about it. Not only speed but quality is a major problem as well in all of JJ_8's postings on this thread.

---

There fixed that for ya.

[Guest]

 

:squawk:

Got try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

Gotta try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

[JJ_8]

Solidworks 2007 runs fine on our NVIDEA G-Force graphics cards. Mastercam does not. We do not use Realview. Have no need for it.

 

<img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D36%252F36_33_7/image.gif">

 

:squawk:

Got try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

Gotta try HOOPS, Gotta try HOOPS

:squawk:

 

 

[gcode]

quote:

---

We do not use Realview. Have no need for it.

---

Then why are you making such a fuss about graphics quality???... just to hear yourself pontificate would be my guess LOL

 

[ 11-17-2007, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: gcode ]

[JJ_8]

For the same reasons others have joined me in saying Mastercam has major problems when it comes to graphics capabilities and quality. One does not have to make use of photo realistic rendering to see the massive difference in free e-Drawings which uses Techsoft HOOPS vs. Mastercam which does not. e-Drawings does not offer photo realistic rendering. As I have pointed out we do not use photo realistic rendering in Solidworks. The issues with graphics in Mastercam have nothing to do with photo realistic rendering. Photo realistic rendering in this thread is just spin used to deflect the point that Matercam X2 graphics leave a lot to be desired and need to be overhauled.

[Guest]

Gee having a problem JJ,

[gcode]

quote:

---

Matercam X2 graphics leave a lot to be desired and need to be overhauled.

---

in your not so humble opinion John..

[iowajim62]

quote:

---

For the same reasons others have joined me in saying I have major problems when it comes to the great Mastercam graphics capabilities and quality.

---

Mastercam is the best. Keep up the good work CNC Software.

[JJ_8]

In the opinion of quite a few who have posted to this thread.

 

Who is John?

[JJ_8]

/Mastercam is the best. Keep up the good work CNC Software./

 

I like it so far.

 

Mastercam could be greatly improved in regards to the user interface, graphics and back plotting.

[iowajim62]

quote:

---

Mastercam could be greatly improved in regards to the user interface, graphics and back plotting.

---

Nah all those things are just fine. It's just that some people don't have anything better to do with their time than complain to the wrong people. Like I said before, did you submit this enhancement request to your reseller or to CNC Software ?

[JJ_8]

Yes I have talked with someone at CNC Software. The person I talked with was candid and admitted that Mastercam was very behind in the areas I mentioned which is quite different than you saying everything is fine with Mastercam. Clearly this is not the case. There also seems to be a growing number of talented Mastercam sales/applications people that are no longer associated with CNC Software. I was just reading what one of them said on the cnczone website. Very disappointing to read what he said.

 

[ 11-17-2007, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: JJ_8 ]

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

Could Mastercam's graphics performance be better? Sure it could. What's the most important thing for CNC Software's developers to be concentrating on improving? I'll give you one guess, and it's not pretty pictures. It's what the software is designed for, making toolpaths. They've been making huge advances lately, and from what I hear have some shiny new features ready to unleash in the next version. They base their priorities on feature requests made by the customers. If 100 people say they want a better high-speed surface-rough-pocket toolpath and 10 say they want photo-realistic graphics, guess which one they'll be focusing on?

[JJ_8]

You and others continue to use photo-realistic graphics to apply spin and derail this thread. Photo-realistic graphics have nothing to do with the graphics problems that Mastercam suffers from / has.