X6 Optirough Major failure!

[neurosis]

So, this must be a new high rate of material removal in X6 optirough?

 

Back to X5 it looks like. There appears to be some MAJOR issues in X6 at the moment.

 

This was an X5 file that I pulled in to X6 two days ago. Ive been playing with the dynamic paths checking out the new functionality. This particular tool path was not modified in any way from the X5 file other than regenerating the operation. The parts are on the machine running right now programmed in X5 and there were no issues. X6 so far has produced three major issues on the same file that produce either crashes or issues.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3cns4thpxA

[Guest]

As I recall, in the past, you've had a good communication stream with Dave Conigliaro.

 

On these paths, I might suggest exploring that connection, he is the guru with this stuff.

 

 

 

:edit:

I get a -1 for suggesting actual conversation???

[neurosis]

:edit:

 

Jparis,

 

I dont believe that it was Dave dealing with the last optirough issue that I had (which I had assumed was from transform operations). It was Rob Peirolo and Jim Evans. The issue was never fixed in X5 but they assured me that it was working in X6. Just to clear that mess up.

 

I may have to find a way to get this file to CNC. I use these dynamic paths daily and am very familiar with them. There definitely seems to be some issues here.

[Guest]

They do have a private FTP if you can get them over there and they're too big to email.

 

contact qc they can get you the address

[neurosis]

--double post.

[neurosis]

They do have a private FTP if you can get them over there and they're too big to email.

 

contact qc they can get you the address

 

 

Its more of an issue of dealing with the boss. He does not like sending our files. I was able to convince him last time because the issue was pretty major. It almost cost us a $1200 piece of material. He had me modify the geometry significantly so that it did not match the original file.

 

This particular issue caught me off guard. I use minimum clearance on every optirough tool path and have never had an issue like this before. What scares me, is that this operation was not modified at all from the X5 file. Just regenerated in X6. Now the minimum clearance apparently means something different than it did in X5. Since I use minimum clearance with a high feed rate rather than rapid, unless I watch every single pass of tool path, it will not show up in the verifier as a collision. That means that we can not trust this tool path. It would take an hour to manually verify just this one single path as is does much more than just rough that one area.

 

We verified this path this morning, sent it to the machine, and a cutter was lost on that move. Luckily it was an area of the part that was still stock. This material is also VERY expensive.

[neurosis]

 

:edit:

I get a -1 for suggesting actual conversation???

 

 

LMAO! I assure you J, that was not me that gave you the -1.

[Guest]

LMAO! I assure you J, that was not me that gave you the -1.

 

 

lol, I didn't think it was

[gcode]

LMAO! I assure you J, that was not me that gave you the -1.

 

there are pathetic little children running around -1ing people anonymously.

 

fearless keyboard warriors hidding in the shadows shooting rubber tipped darts :lol:

[john316]

there are pathetic little children running around -1ing people anonymously.

 

And +1ing themselves to increase their profile reputation.

[gcode]

actually, I think this is a lone wolf operation, not affliated with any known groups or geometric shapes

 

webby sees all

[neurosis]

Man, Ive had about four crashes already using stock model as well. Seems to happen when I am using other operations to create the stock model and I go to edit one of the operations used to create it.

[Guest]

Man, Ive had about four crashes already using stock model as well. Seems to happen when I am using other operations to create the stock model and I go to edit one of the operations used to create it.

 

I'm curious, I had a wicked time on my x64 station at home with a mold I did and getting stock models as I neared the finish.

 

Are you running x64?

 

I am thinking if this is complicated and you're on an x86 machine that "maybe" you're running out of memory.

[Aeroguy]

Well far be it from me to "Hide in the shadows"

It was me.

 

there are pathetic little children running around -1ing people anonymously.

 

fearless keyboard warriors hidding in the shadows shooting rubber tipped darts :lol:

[neurosis]

J,

 

Im on a windows XP pc that has 4 gigs of ram. It is not 64.

 

I have sent a crash report with every crash and will continue to do so hoping that they will be able to find a solution. So far, at this point, the stock model is as useless to me as optirough is.

[Guest]

As I said during Beta, I like the "concept" of it, I just think there has to be a better way to implement it.

[mayday]

I use the old style paths. much more control, and I dont need all the pigtail z moves in and out of the part. I think these paths where made more the window all surfaces type programmers

[neurosis]

I use the old style paths. much more control, and I dont need all the pigtail z moves in and out of the part. I think these paths where made more the window all surfaces type programmers

 

 

I think that these paths were made for the person that wants consistent tool life, convenient programming and some return for their investment in maintenance. I think that NOT using these paths are your loss and our gain. If they work as intended that is.

 

To put it a different way, I am not going to make my work more difficult by using tool paths that force me to do 10 times the work to get the same or not as good of results just so I can feel like I am some how better with the system than the people that do use them.

 

Dont get me wrong, I believe that manually creating path or using the legacy paths to get desired results also has its time and place. But why not use the available tools? And how can you look down your nose at the people that do use them?

 

Maybe you havent seen enough positive results to be convinced? I am on the other side of the coin. I have seen them.

 

 

I guess to each their own.

[neurosis]

Ive tried to make a few changes to see if I could get this to stop happening. So far no luck. I even changed the high feed move to minimum clearance with rapid and same results only now it is detectable in verify (stop on collision).

 

 

Im preparing a file to send in to QC.

[Bob W.]

Man, Ive had about four crashes already using stock model as well. Seems to happen when I am using other operations to create the stock model and I go to edit one of the operations used to create it.

 

Bummer, and you can't really fall back on Volumill either... It kinda makes it necessary to go back to X5 doesn't it? I'm sure the MU1 fix for this will only be a few months away.

[neurosis]

Bummer, and you can't really fall back on Volumill either... It kinda makes it necessary to go back to X5 doesn't it? I'm sure the MU1 fix for this will be only a few months away.

 

 

Dont get me started on that again.. haha.

 

But yes... with these flaws in X6 ive already been told by the owner and foreman that we are not to use X6 for production. This is B.S. because now we have to wait for who knows how long to get a bug fix and as we already know, Mastercam/CNC does not release patches. I am sure that when our maintenance comes up for renewal I am going to be in the position of having to argue the case to continue it again with the same comments that I hear every single time. "Why am I paying to beta test their software?" "Where is our return when the software does not work properly" and until then, "When are they going to fix these issues so we can use what we have already paid for!" They make me feel as if these issues are some how my fault some times. Although in their eyes, it is MY fault that we are still using this software because I am the one that has continued to convince them to keep it.

 

And it definitely is a bummer about volumill.

[Bob W.]

I have been watching intently to see if there is enough justification to lose the Volumill functionality and upgrade to X6 but I just don't see it. I do know this though, if I purchase a CAM seat from another CAM package, Volumill will transfer my license to work with that new cam package. It kinda makes me think... Volumill is bulletproof and I will not give that up until Mastercam's solution is as complete and bulletproof.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I get a -1 for suggesting actual conversation???

Who would give a -1 for that?

 

John, I gave one of my +1's for the day to you because -1 - ing that is just... just.... nevermind.

[Aeroguy]

. Although in their eyes, it is MY fault that we are still using this software because I am the one that has continued to convince them to keep it.

 

Honestly, if you have to convince people to keep something that they feel isn't working, then if your in the position to do so, maybe you should actually consider something else.

 

Of course if you have to use it, then thats a different story altogether.

[Thee Rickster ™]

I sure hope they haven't decided to skip an MU1 and go right to X7.

 

The track record on all major releases have made an immediate MU1 necessary

but alas month go by.

 

My Owner and I have a protocol here at our shop, not to run new releases with out MU1

be cause of the issues/cost/and lost time.

 

I convinced him this round we should be able to run with X6 and not to worry.

 

Now I am having second thoughts, as I have ZERO time to waste Beta testing X6 with Neurosis, and others.

 

Jobbing shops survive on reliability. Maybe someone from CNC can chime in to

ensure us we don't have to wait till spring for an MU1 bug fixer upper....or worse X7