V10 - How much change is good?

[Alias]

We've have had indicators that V10 is going to be "totally" different. I for one, do NOT want to go through a long and frustrating learning curve that will slow me down getting programs out to the floor. And I'm sure my employer won't want any slow down either

 

How much is going to change? There was talk a while back about having both the new interface and old interface, both that's still in question. Hopefully the whole thing won't be icon driven where you're going to have to remember little nondescript symbols and rely on tool tips instead of actually reading text on a menu.

 

I'm worried about the bottom line. That's where I make money, getting code out to the floor to cut chips. Having the latest & greatest is secondary.

[chris m]

Having not used Mastercam for too long, I don't have many of the worries that long-time MC guys have about the supposedly drastic change to the [lousy, in my opinion] user interface. I do pretty much equate it, though, to the jump AutoCAD made from DOS to Windows interface way back when (Release 12, maybe). I was very comfortable with the DOS interface for ACAD and initially didn't like the new one, but over time I became very comfortable with it. As long as Mastercam retains the hotkey support and keyboard shortcuts that we're used to, as Autodesk did with AutoCAD, I think that the transition shouldn't be too horrible.

 

I suppose you could always leave V9 in your box while you familiarized yourself with V10 in case you needed to bang out a job and were having some kind of problem

 

C

[BernieT]

I think you should volunteer to be a Beta tester.

 

[PE @ IHS]

Getting used to a new interface might take time for long time MC users. However, this is secondary in importance, compared to the urgent need to remain competitive in the market. Mastercam needs to "look" modern in order to keep up with some of our competitors, such as Edgecam, Esprit, etc. Mastercam already has a lot of great functionality, but it needs to appeal to new users who often buy on impulse and first impressions rather than taking the time to learn about functionality (where MC tends to shine).

 

Getting used to a new interface is well worth the benefit of modernizing the appearance of the product, therefore increasing sales and generating more revenue for improvements and advancements. These improvements benefit us all.

 

[ 06-21-2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Peter Eigler ]

[robk]

+1 Peter

 

Personally I love learning new things. You have to if you want to stay ahead of the competition. I have never seen Mastercam go backwards in any of their releases.... For those afraid of changes you should pick up a copy of "Who Moved My Cheese". It's a dog eat dog world out there, and only the strong survive and thrive.

[CAM-mando]

I have recently experienced a rewrite with our CAD software. We use CADkey for design and modeling and MasterCAM only for toolpathing. CADkey is currently in Beta for v21.5 (20 was the new version). They too added a new interface. The old DOS or "classic" interface is available, the default install resembles the previous windows interface, but their is a tremendemous amount of customization possible. CADkey chose to implement a concept called "Workspaces". The workspace is essentially the arrangement of tool pallets etc. The individual tool palletes are completely customizable so you can set your interface up to have all the commands you want available with a single click as well as customizable hot key definitions. You can load different workspaces at any time. So I for example have a workspace set up optomized for modeling and one for detailing.

 

Although it took a little getting used to, I was more productive (in terms of interface) within a day or so. The rewrite is also an opurtunity to group various settings and properties in more logical and hopefully easier locations.

 

The bigger problem for me was the fact that re writing a 15+ year old piece of software is a gargantuan task. Bugs are inevitable. Taking code that has been drug around for years, picking out the algorithyms and implementing them into a whole new foundation will no doubt introduce bugs which will take a little while to sort out. Hopefully CNC will not make the mistake CADKEY made ... buckle under the schedule pressure and release an un polished product. If you are satisfied with 9.1, I would suggest you use that platform as the working platform and use the initial release of X to familaiarize yourself with the new product while making money with 9.1. When you are comfortable, then make the switch.

 

I am not comparing the CK and MC products (although back in the early 90's they looked and operated rather similar. My experience through that transition however taught me alot.

 

Ultimately the MC X product should be a better more productive tool. If properly done, the re-write should not only make the product look more appealing, but should enable the programmers to enhance the product (with functionality) better and faster. Providing us with better tools and CNC with the ability to stay competitive with the current generation of CAM products on the market. Which is obviuosly mutually benneficial.

[Charles Davis]

Taking a few hours to learn a new interface will repay itself many times over in being able to do things faster over the long run.

 

You can only go so far with a menu tree interface. No matter how much you try, there is only so much space on the menus, and you end up sticking things where they fit to keep from going five levels deep.

 

CNC has thought long and hard about this. Since this is the first major interface change that I can recall, it's not something they do frivolously, for the reason they don't want to unnecessarily jerk around current customers.

 

But, there comes a time to make the big leap. I don't think you'll be disappointed. Rather I think you will cheer.

 

That's all I have to say, so I'm done, done, done, done.

 

[ 06-21-2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Charles Davis ]

[cadcam]

I am looking forward to a new windows interface..

I am still a little worried by that I am so at home with what we have now..

 

But I know this will bring more power and control over the system..

 

So I say bring on the beta I am willing and ready.

[Jean-Simon]

Have seen a demo of MCAM X at the Canadian dealers conference at In-House Solutions last January, 1st impression is good because it's exactly the same software with a Windows interface where you can customize toolbarand all kind of stuff which can only be better and they showed us that they should have a "Classic menu" for the long time users. To me it would only be a couple of days to get in it because all the CAM side (parameters pages) are the same. It will only be to get use to the shortcuts but I think they'll still be available, I really don't think we'll need a whole new training. All this is just an opinion from what I've seen.

 

Simon

[gcode]

I bought Mastercam V7 after using TekSoft for 3 years. TekSoft had a Windows GUI but it was not customizable.(is that word???)

At the start, I was very unhappy with the

Masteracam interface but after working with it a while and learning some shortcut keys things got better.

I'm looking forward to beta testing V10, but

I'm thinking there wil be a lot of moaning and groaning on the forum and at my work. Some folks just don't like new things!

[Toolfab]

Just think if Mcam wouldnt't have updated the interface since....lets say V6. There would be NO operations manager, no job setup, jsut to name a few. New interfaces are difficult at first then 2 weeks goes by and you try to remember how you got along without these features in the past.

 

Progress is good, complacency is death. Keep on learnin and changin' its what we ALL need.

 

to progress

[KCollins]

quote:

---

Some folks just don't like new things!

---

What would give you that Idea?

I'm with the group that believes updating far outweighs the time it takes to learn a new gui....using the windows api should not only make things easier for new users (having windows experience)...but might make things a little easier to find....and hence faster in the long run.....

 

Also with a little bit of skill in the programming the windows api can be just as customizable as a dos based interface....

 

I guess it all comes down to how motivated the mastercam programmers are....

[Rekd™]

KCollins, You reference the windows API, which is a programmers tool, (in visual basic), that allows calling routines from .dll's. This will not be available to the end user.

 

Are you referring to the GUI?

 

'Rekd teh cornfused

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I figured it was time for me to weigh in on this.

 

I've been using MC since like Ver. 3.0-3.1 ish. With every release comes the "Learning Curve". But... spending the time (sometimes after hours on my own time) to get over the curve has resulted in huge productivity gains. If I were to go back to even say Version 7.x now.... man, I'd be fired! To CNC I say TOTAL re-write is mandatory. Nothing less that TOTAL user customization will be acceptable.

 

I'm not interested in maintaining the status quo, if I were, I would not be the programmer I am today. Using the tools available in the current Version as opposed to Version 7 takes an average 10-20 hours of each and every job.

 

In conclusion, to those unwilling to change, please stay that way, because if I ever need to find another job I'll look that much better than you, be that much more productive than you and make that much more money than you and as always more money is a good thing.

[bryan314]

quote:

---

If I were to go back to even say Version 7.x now.... man, I'd be fired!

---

That's funny. One of our constantly revolving conversations (when we're not solving all the other world problems) is how nothing would get done if we went back to the 'old' [cough]slow[cough] way of doing things. The mill operators would be breathing down our necks constantly asking for work. That includes not only an older version of mastercam, but also all our procedures.

 

On the issue of MC, I totally agree. Rewriting and customization are a must. I hope that the interface-front-end isn't the only thing given a good whack though. Rewriting the interface may make it look nice and all but I want it to BE NICE all the way through to the core. I hope the underlying code and structures have been cleaned up or totally rewritten. Any software project over the years becomes cluttered as new features and bug fixes are tacked on all over the place. Sometimes you just need to rewrite all it.

 

 

Bryan

[Bullines]

quote:

---

Also with a little bit of skill in the programming the windows api can be just as customizable as a dos based interface..

---

Windows API? For the sake of the developers at CNC Software, I hope not. Pray they use MFC, at least and use the windows API in worse-comes-to-worse situations

 

quote:

---

I hope the underlying code and structures have been cleaned up or totally rewritten.

---

Pointers that point to pointers of pointers isn't fun? [bullines crosses fingers and hopes for the day he can, for example, create an inherited chain object]

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

quote:

---

Sometimes you just need to rewrite all it.

---

+1000

 

Not that MC is not great, because it is, but... (ever notice how there's always a but?) it NEEDS updating to the Windows era to give us the end user more control, to give the developer more access, to make it easier to patch. Gee writing a .dll or completely compiling a new executable, hmmm which whould I choose? Gee I wonder.

[bryan314]

quote:

---

...to give the developer more access...

---

+1 gajillion

 

While I like writing chooks this half crippled developement kit sometimes drives me crazy.

 

Bryan

[Bullines]

quote:

---

While I like writing chooks this half crippled developement kit sometimes drives me crazy.

---

Bryan, would you be a fan of C++ Hooks, as opposed to C-Hooks? Could you imagine entities as objects with their own methods and attributes, instead of big structs? I could think of a few functions that would be sweet if they were overloaded

[bryan314]

I haven't done much object oriented programming in C++ but have done enough in other languages to see the benefits.

 

Entities as objects. hmmmmmmmm... I'll have to let that one bounce around in the back of the skull a little. Possibilities begin to form....

 

To highjack the thread even more. What do think of adding a small text attribute to the entity struct? Something even as small as 128 characters.

Then an arc (or other entity) could have something like this in the text:

drill size: spot drill

drill: -0.200

drill size: 0.375

drill: thru

Then use the arc as a pattern for 3/8 drilled holes when designing a part. A small vbscript or chook could be written to scan the file for all the arcs of this type, create or import the proper operations, assign the geometry, and regen. Viola, a really frickin cool auto drill program.

 

Bryan

[Alias]

quote:

---

To CNC I say TOTAL re-write is mandatory

---

And you also want V10 shipping tomorrow too, right?

[Bullines]

quote:

---

What do think of adding a small text attribute to the entity struct? Something even as small as 128 characters.

---

I agree; a descriptor would come in handy as long as it was a char pointer instead of a character array. In the case of say 3000+ entities, unused descriptors would increase the size of the file unnecessarily. I guess it would be similar to the way you can name individual elements in apps like Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Fireworks. It would make searching for entities in the database easier to do. Imagine if you could pass SQL statements in a search on that field, too (Ex: SELECT arc FROM mc_db WHERE desc='my spot drill'). I'm gettin' way out of hand with the SQL idea Keep 'em comin', Bryan

[bryan314]

I would prefer the array instead of the pointer. Notes use that memory table pointer thingy and I've seen to often something get corrupted and watch part or all the notes go bye bye. I grant you that adding a character array of 128 or 256 would increase file size but not as much as you think. Currently an 'entity' takes up about 108 bytes in a mc file and adding the character would double or even triple the entity size. The thing is it really wouldn't increase the file size that much. Much of the bulk of a mc file is control points for splines, surface data, and the biggest the binary nci generated by toolpaths.

 

With 3000 entities the file currently would be around 300K or 324000 bytes.

Adding another 256 bytes would make the file around 1 megabyte.

Granted this is a big increase but if your file has that many entities there's a good chance most of them are surfaces. The file itself already is probably over 1mb. Add a few surface toolpaths and the file probably balloons up to 5, 10, or even a 100 megs. Relatively an extra 700k isn't that much.

 

Another thing to remember if space is a problem, like you said, most of the arrays will be blank. Any compression program should compress the heck out of these for backups or storage.

 

 

I like the idea of directly querying an mc file with SQL. I already have a couple of programs that dump Mc entites into a db for querying and other things. It's really nice. Being able to directly query the MC database would make this much nicer and much simpler.

 

Bryan

 

[ 06-27-2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: bryan314 ]

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

quote:

---

And you also want V10 shipping tomorrow too, right?

---

No, if I have Beta X in hand before the end of the year I'll be happy. They've been working on it for quite some time now. This stuff doesn't happen over night ya know.

[Bullines]

quote:

---

Relatively an extra 700k isn't that much.

---

My head's still on this thread recalling reading Code Complete and remembering to be frugal. We live in better times, now