Sign in to follow this  
neurosis

CNC dropping partnership with Volumill?

Recommended Posts

After X3....same issues as you and went back to X2 mr2 sp1...or what ever...until X4 came out.

 

Then I learned the, Very expensive, hard way with X4, first with the temp folder crash bug,

then the tool numbering bug that cost us a small fortune

 

I stopped complaining and using new releases without the MU's....... problem solved.

 

(maybe I toss a friendly snide remark in, here and there);)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first with the temp folder crash bug,

 

wasn't that a problem with your Windows permissions.???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall trying dozens of things that worked for a short while or less.

I would have to re-read the thread to confirm what the actual fix was.

But I thought it finally went away completely after MU1 came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rickster, you were correct. The problem was fixed with the MU release. I had the same issue at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction on the MU1 fixing the problem.

 

Mu1 started it, MU2 fixed it.

CNC software gave us a pre MU2 build to download and that was the fix.

 

I just went through my old regen error thread, right there on page 12 or 13....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never use a .0 release in anger. I always wait for the Update. Beta testing never picks up all bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pull this thread back into the subject matter...

 

First of all, CNC Software appreciates and understands the concern and passion expressed in this thread. As the Product Manager, I will only touch on the business side while focusing more on the technology side. I intend to explain where Dynamic Technology is and where it is going.

 

End of Partnership

It really comes down to the large overlap of functionality between our Dynamic 2D and 3D toolpaths and Celeretive’s toolpaths. This overlap makes the relationship not only difficult to comprehend from the customer’s point of view but also difficult for our dealers to sell.

 

Will CNC Software Charge for Dynamic technology?

CNC Software has no intentions of charging for Dynamic technology.

 

Dynamic Technology

Dynamic technology is absolutely home grown in the U.S.A. at CNC Software Inc. in Tolland, Connecticut. It is our technology and ours alone. The technology is based on our own unique approach to this type of machining. Dynamic technology did not copy any other systems as speculated in this thread. Dynamic technology was being worked on way, way before X4 was even thought about or considered. Dynamic Technology will continue to evolve, mature, improve and spawn new toolpaths in releases to come…

 

Current functionality concerns

The top two X5 issues discussed in this thread relate to ease of chaining and Rest milling. These two issues are being addressed in X6 late in the summer. I have been testing the enhancements for months.

 

2D HST Region Chaining –X6 will support explicit groups of chains to support “Machining Chains” “Avoidance Chains”, “Entry Chains”, etc…No more dependency on chain sizes, although you will still be able to use the X5 approach is desired.

3D HST OptiRest –X6 introduces OptiRest enabling users to reference STL files, reference previous toolpaths, tool sizes, etc for rest machining applications using OptiRough technology. A new Stock Model entity is also being released…

3D HST OptiArea & OptiCore – X6 will split X5 OptiRough into two separate toolpaths similar to the way X5 split up 2D HST Dynamic Mill.

 

Another Generation of Dynamic technology

X6 contains major improvements to Dynamic’s quality, smooth flow, tool load and includes full Bullnose tool support, no more cusps on the floor with aggressive stepovers, for all toolpaths using Dynamic Technology to include:

 

Dynamic Facing

Dynamic Area

Dynamic Core

Dynamic Rest

Dynamic Contour

OptiArea

OptiCore

OptiRest

Other improvements and enhancements are in store as well…

 

Did you Know?

--3D HST OptiRough can be set to only mill flats during step ups, very useful on level one type parts. If you set the stepdown = step up it tells OptiRough to only mill flats on the way up.

--2D HST Dynamic allows the user to influence the flow if the toolpath? Chain any open chain within your Dynamic Area pocket, set entry to “custom” and watch the dynamic motion use that open chain as the driving shape for the entry and the following toolpath. You can choose to ramp on center of the open chain or add a slot width to the entry. Entering with this method can be dangerous with an angle set as your entry depth, so use the pitch option instead.

 

I welcome any and all example files you would like me to look at relative to OptiRest development. Please contact me outside of this thread if you are interested in sharing some files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update.. can't wait to beta test it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynamic technology is absolutely home grown in the U.S.A. at CNC Software Inc. in Tolland, Connecticut. It is our technology and ours alone. The technology is based on our own unique approach to this type of machining. Dynamic technology did not copy any other systems as speculated in this thread. Dynamic technology was being worked on way, way before X4 was even thought about or considered.

 

Except for the linking Dynamic Mill produces the exact same cutting pattern as Cimco's Adaptive Clearing. Maybe it's not a copy but CNC surely got some inspiration ;)

 

Julian ( one of the creator's of adaptive ) wrote this on his blog:

 

http://www.freesteel.co.uk/wpblog/2009/04/suggested-caption-this-new-machining-technique-gives-you-the-ability-to-utilize-the-entire-flute-length-of-the-cutting-tool-saving-both-time-and-money/

 

Their new “Dynamic milling” technique looks a lot like our old Adaptive Clearing strategy, which we invented in 2004.

 

Obviously, it can’t be the same code, or we would have seen some sort of a contract relating to it, got paid a tiny stipend for fixing on-going bugs, and so on. Still, those people at Mastercam have managed to produce a finished product without all the usual embarrassing intervening stages of half-baked flawed and buggy versions that you tend to get in this line of work. They must be much cleverer at programming than we are not to experience all the same set-backs and mistakes. I’d like to hear from them — the people who coded it; not the be-suited managers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian's statement is a testament to the talented team behind Dynamic Technology.

 

This doesn't change the fact the cutting patterns are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u]End of Partnership[/u]It really comes down to the large overlap of functionality between our Dynamic 2D and 3D toolpaths and Celeretive’s toolpaths. This overlap makes the relationship not only difficult to comprehend from the customer’s point of view but also difficult for our dealers to sell

 

I really don't se the problem. The user will always need a MCAM licens - no lost business for CNC - and if the customer has some parts where Volumill produces a more efficient toolpath due to their different cutting pattern they should be allowed to buy it if they like.

 

Without Volumill MCAM loses functionality to NX, hyperMILL, ect.

 

What does CNC gain from ending the partnership? Nothing from my viewpoint, only some unhappy users ( those currently using Volumill )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What does CNC gain from ending the partnership? Nothing from my viewpoint, only some unhappy users ( those currently using Volumill )

I believe this says it all....

End of Partnership

It really comes down to the large overlap of functionality between our Dynamic 2D and 3D toolpaths and Celeretive’s toolpaths. This overlap makes the relationship not only difficult to comprehend from the customer’s point of view but also difficult for our dealers to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info David. I'm stoked that Optirough will support rest milling from an STL, but I'm still a little disappointed about the lack of check surface support. Using an STL as stock will be a huuuuge help though, it will negate a lot of instances where I would need check surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, thank you for the reply. There's certainly some intersting things coming.

 

We've stayed away from X5 waiting for mu1 for the same reason as a few above have. We totally skipped X3 because the reports on here frightened us to death! We're only a small company and are always up against it with timescales, so the last thing we want is 'problematical code'.

We (like everyone) want code that we can trust and just run.

 

BUT, it begs the question that if everyone stayed away from X5 and waited for mu1, then mu1 would effectively be the same as X5, with lots of the bugs not noticed because 'no-one' is using it.

If we all went for the X5 release, then more bugs get noticed earlier, and therefore more get fixed earlier???

So, is it wiser to go Beta testing (and expect bugs), and at least get the early benefit on cycle time reduction with the new paths?

I think we'll have a chat at work about this tomorrow, as i'm starting to lean towards one seat having X5 while the other perhaps stays at X4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does CNC gain from ending the partnership? Nothing from my viewpoint, only some unhappy users ( those currently using Volumill )

 

You need to realize that every business has it's own objectives and business model to support. Regardless of what the customers are told, apparently the partnership with Volumill does not fit CNC software's model, for themselves, not their customers. I doubt that all of the details of CNC Software's decision have been made public nor will they ever be. I would also bet that when the partnership began, a substantial agreement was put in place to protect intellectual property. With that said, I would expect what ever algorithms are used in CNC's toolpaths will be very different than those used in Volumill's and I would expect the performance to be different as well, different meaning better or worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One - and expensive - way to get both Dynamic Mill and Volumill

 

Step 1: Get a seat of SolidWorks

Step 2: Add MasterCAM for SolidWorks ( Dynamic Mill )

Step 3: Add hyperMILL with hyperMAXX ( Volumill )

Step 4: Add HSMWorks ( Adaptive Clearing )

Step 5: Add SolidCAM ( iMachining )

 

Then you'll have 4 nice roughing toolpaths in one full parametric cad system ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
End of Partnership

It really comes down to the large overlap of functionality between our Dynamic 2D and 3D toolpaths and Celeretive’s toolpaths. This overlap makes the relationship not only difficult to comprehend from the customer’s point of view but also difficult for our dealers to sell.

 

I believe this says it all....

 

That doesnt really say anything. The strategies are completely different even while they accomplish the same things.

 

And why hasnt Cimco's HSS performance pack been affected the same way? They are not getting a large enough foot print in mastercams user base to become a threat? Adaptive clearing is clearly a closer match to mastercam than volumill. This sounds like a cop out to me. ( sorry Dave, no offense intended ). The "ONLY" people that stand to lose here are we who purchased Volumill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbeeee, thank you for seeing things so wisely.

 

Your theory is valid, if no one embraces the .0 releases, less bugs get reported. The bugs are not getting squashed in MU1, they are simply given a chance to migrate to the MU1 only to be reported then, disrupting the next .0 release. A dangerous cycle. We purposely set aside development time to work on MU1 to address bugs only, so he who reports bugs in X5 gets a better chance of seeing a fix in MU1. He who waits to load X5 MU1 reports bugs that will disrupt our X6 development causing delays and more time to wait for a bug fix and the next .0 release. It's a vicious cycle, but like most things in life, it is always better to address something sooner than later.

 

Another example. We see a lot of beta sites wait for deeper beta releases or even a PC release (production candidate) before they start testing because they want the software to settle a bit and obvious bugs to be addressed first. Then they start testing near our PC and start reporting bugs very late in the development cycle, bugs that could have been caught months earlier, delaying the next release. Again, another vicious cycle.

 

This is software development, the earlier you report issues to us, the earlier we can release to you.

 

Now I'm off subject in this thread :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really comes down to the large overlap of functionality between our Dynamic 2D and 3D toolpaths and Celeretive’s toolpaths. This overlap makes the relationship not only difficult to comprehend from the customer’s point of view but also difficult for our dealers to sell.

 

So as a maintenance paying customer with a sizable investment in Volumill I am taking a beating and losing my investment in Volumill because of a little confusion?

 

What does CNC gain from ending the partnership? Nothing from my viewpoint, only some unhappy users ( those currently using Volumill )

 

Any answers to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, you have essentially made all of your maintenance paying customers' investment in Volumill worthless. Did you consider that before making the decision to end the partnership with Volumill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "ONLY" people that stand to lose here are we who purchased Volumill.

 

Not entirely accurate. The only folks that will lose are MASTERCAM'S MAINTENANCE PAYING customers that bought Volumill. The folks not paying Mastercam maintenance will be able to continue running Volumill as long as they like since they will not be installing Mastercam upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up Bob. That makes me feel much better. <grin>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us