ESPRIT VS MASTERCAM

[SONAVO]

I think Esprit is working great on 4 Axis with solid modeling, Esprit doe not need to unwrap Geometry for wrap contouring, it also has transverse move like:

RADIAL WALL

RADIAL TOOL AXIS

CONSTANT OFFSET

FEATURE NORMAL

But i like them both any way

 

SON VO

[MIL-TFP-41]

quote:

---

If your bet is 2 years out... you will loose

---

dealer told me not to expect a whole lot till X4...will see some things in X3 MR1. I am going by CNC Software's history....So I really don't expect full support till X5.

 

Point is...if you need a mill-turn solution now...don't look toward mastercam.

[dprovost71]

When I said near future, I know it takes awhile to develop something like this and work most of the bugs out...I was thinking more like 5yrs out may be more realistic.

We did get a little off the mark here.

The main question was Esprit vs Mastercam doing molds and 5axis work...which is faster? or easier? I tend to think its more a training issue that this programmer is having trouble with Mastercam.

[MIL-TFP-41]

Sorry bout the off topic rant....but when people use Mastercam & 2 turrets in one sentence it gets me going.

 

That being said...I am sure that Esprit is quite capable of producing quality 5 axis toolpaths. I believe that they did thier toolpaths "in house" rather that going through Moduleworks. Whether thats an advantage or not...I dunno.

 

I can say that I have not heard the most positive things about support when it comes to Esprit...definate minus

 

If you are already using mastercam & it is working fine for you needs.....I think it would be insane to change. The cost of the software & the training to use it could well be spent on making more parts.

[Garen Cakmak/CAP Tech.]

Mastercam comprises of 2 types of toolpaths. One is the easier, faster and simpler 4 & 5 axis toolpaths, ,which will do as much and more then Esprit. The other is the advanced 4 & 5 axis toolpaths for more complex parts with more automated tool control when needed (Which is in a league of its own). With the right training you will be able to use the right toolpath for the right part. What’s nice with Mastercam is that both types of toolpaths are continually being developed for continual improvement. Once you get training you will have all the tools that you need.

JMC I know you get upset when you hear “Mastercam & 2 turrets in one sentence,” but we can still so much for millturn applications. We can output 2 code streams through the postprocessor for machines like integrex with a lower turret, the Nakamura tome machines, etc. You can also optimize & sync it afterwards on the machine. I know it’s ideal when it can be done by software first then on the machine but with a good postprocessor you can do a lot right now.

[SLJ]

Hey Doug, is Steve still training for Randy there in Broken Arrow? Spent some time there back around 2000 while he explained quite a few work arounds for Esprit. At that time a lot of the program was "greyed out" and Steve wasn't any happier about it than my boss was.

[gaijin_2007]

Interesting thread this.

 

My only concern with the multi-axis toolpaths in MC is the reliance on 3rd party technology, with either ModuleWorks or Camaix providing the current multi-axis technology.

It's not the fact that it's not good, it is.

It's not really the fact that (in the case of the ModuleWorks strategies) it's the same as used by EdgeCAM, GibbsCAM, SolidCAM, CamWorks, Cimatron, etc.

It's not even the fact that the technology isn't being continually developed.

 

It's that the *rate* of development is out of CNC's hands.

 

I'm sure they apply pressure to their development partners to keep up with the current leaders in multi-axis machining (IMO PowerMILL and HyperMILL) but these partners also have demands put on them from their other customers.

 

With the 3-axis strategies coming from NC Graphics (PTC now) or Cimco where does that leave CNC with regards to the rate of development for this core functionality?

 

It's going in the right direction for sure but is it taking too long to get there?

 

Esprit is actually a good example of this.

3 or 4 years ago Esprit was the leader in multi-tasking, they had multi-turret, multi-spindle synchronization sorted, the machine simulation was first rate.

Pig of a learning curve but well, they could do stuff with multi-task machines that others were nowhere near.

 

Then they took the foot off the gas.

 

The last few years have seen some eye candy added but in terms of improvements in functionality in response to user demands, very , very little.

Looking at the simulation in the latest release of PartMaker (http://www.partmaker.com/camsoftware/press/press_53.cfm) makes Esprit look extremely dated and they've definately lost ground in ease of use for multi-task machines to FeatureCAM.

 

Garen,

I hear what you're saying but just being able to post out 2 code streams isn't even close (IMO) to where CNC should be right now.

They're not even out of the blocks and the competition is 3/4 of the way down the track.

It's going to have to take something spectacular to even get them close.

Who knows though?

They could do it but it's going to take a hell of a lot of resource to develop it and my concern is (again) there will be a high reliance on 3rd party technology.

[YoDoug®]

SLJ,

 

Yes Steve and Randy are both still with Cim Integrators in Tulsa. They have quit representing all other software except Esprit and now have some sort of partnership with DP Tech. Many of the examples you see in Esprit literature were from/with Cim's customers. When they came in here a few months ago to demo the Multi-tasking/Swiss capabilities they not only showed us these files that they had pretty pictures of, but they gave us contact info at the companies so we could get their opinions. Again I will say the support from them is of the highest quality.