Old bugs back again. Thanks alot CNC!

[neurosis]

 

I don't even do/try that in CATIA. Holy $#!+!!!

 

That 'splains ALOT!!!

 

 

We used to machine allot of assemblies at that time. I would pull the entire assembly in to Mastercam and start setting up operations. I did it that way because we had to design how the parts of the assemblies attached to each other. That meant that I had to decide what were going to be the locating surfaces of each part for machining on the fly and also assign our own tolerances so that when we assembled things, the assembly ended up in tolerance. Some of these assemblies were laser guides and the finished assembly had very tight tolerances. It was much easier to program the parts while you are able to see the entire assembly.

 

We were doing this in Cimatron without a hitch. In Fact, we were doing much larger assemblies with far more parts in Cimatron without a hitch. This is why I say that Mastercam has limitations. I never had an issue with instability or crashes when I was working on these in Cimatron.

 

I should also add, that I am glad that we are no longer working on these assemblies.

 

 

Edit:

 

I should also add, that I had opened some of these unstable part files in X5 and what ever they had done between X2 and X5 solved the crashing issue. I was able to work around in these files without the constant crashing.

[Bob W.]

 

I don't even do/try that in CATIA. Holy $#!+!!!

 

That 'splains ALOT!!!

 

Why not? Set up different parts on different levels. Create operation groups for the different parts and setups. Machine groups for 3-axis and 5-axis. Isn't that why Mastercam has all of these features? For simple prototype assemblies being run on the same machine it is the most efficient way. I do it all the time for simpler assemblies but on larger, more complex parts I keep them separate and use levels for different part revisions, etc...

[neurosis]

Why not? Set up different parts on different levels. Create operation groups for the different parts and setups. Machine groups for 3-axis and 5-axis. Isn't that why Mastercam has all of these features? For simple prototype assemblies being run on the same machine it is the most efficient way. I do it all the time for simpler assemblies but on larger, more complex parts I keep them separate and use levels for different part revisions, etc...

 

 

Exactly. It also makes things much easier to keep organized.

 

 

When we were making these assemblies, we would have every machine in the shop working on the various different parts of the assembly. It would have been a nightmare to have to bounce back and forth between several part files. Not to mention confusing.

 

One thing that I learned NOT to do was expand all of the operations in the operations manager. Never Ever!

 

Doing things this way brought out several limitations of the operations manager. We would at times have groups with sub groups five deep. I needed the entire second monitor screen for the Operations Manager alone.

 

 

And I wondered why Mastercam was constantly crashing... sheesh.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Why not? Set up different parts on different levels. Create operation groups for the different parts and setups. Machine groups for 3-axis and 5-axis. Isn't that why Mastercam has all of these features? For simple prototype assemblies being run on the same machine it is the most efficient way. I do it all the time for simpler assemblies but on larger, more complex parts I keep them separate and use levels for different part revisions, etc...

I load in large assemblies all the time, that's not why I was .

 

All the places I worked for the heirarchy would be like this;

 

\\Customer\Assembly Number(If Applicable)\Part Number\Revision\

I'd work on a single part number (or however many where on say a tombstone) and go from there. To me, doing all that stuff in a single file is just asking for it to go to hell in a hand basket. Files I'm sure, get massive in a hurry, and from the looks of his old rig, he was asking way too much from it on top of asking an awful lot from the software. That's like asking a mini-truck to haul 50 head of cattle.

 

JMHO

[neurosis]

I load in large assemblies all the time, that's not why I was .

 

All the places I worked for the heirarchy would be like this;

 

\\Customer\Assembly Number(If Applicable)\Part Number\Revision\

I'd work on a single part number (or however many where on say a tombstone) and go from there. To me, doing all that stuff in a single file is just asking for it to go to hell in a hand basket. Files I'm sure, get massive in a hurry, and from the looks of his old rig, he was asking way too much from it on top of asking an awful lot from the software. That's like asking a mini-truck to haul 50 head of cattle.

 

JMHO

 

 

Absolutely. Some of the files were very large. The size of the part files were all related to tool path. All of the assemblies were mostly wireframe and surfaces, no solids. I also only created surfaces that were required to generate tool path to help keep part file size down.

 

I will say it again though, I was able to do this in Cimatron no problem. IN fact, I was doing it in Cimatron 10 years earlier with a fraction of the horse power and ram and with even larger assemblies. I have to ask you James, what does that tell us about Mastercam? Or do you see this as an unfair comparison? Do we assume that Cimatron was much better at memory management?

 

 

I see people in here heckling Cimatron once in a while but my experience has shown me that it is a very capable system where Mastercam has failed. Thats not to say that Mastercam does not have its strong points. My point here though, is if Cimatron was able to do this 10 years ago on a far lesser platform, why couldnt Mastercam do this reliably? Especially when computer technology has come as far as it has. And dont get me wrong, Cimatron is long gone for us. I am not trying to sell Cimatron to anyone. I am just trying to figure out why this system that we use now, is not as capable as a system that I was using 10 years ago on 10 year older technology. And actually, it was almost 20 years ago.. :| I started using Cimatron in 1995.

 

I will admit, this may not have been CNC's intention when they started to design their software this way, but they sure as hell do not say that anywhere and do not suggest that there are such limitations. Maybe they should have been obvious to me?

 

Keep in mind that most of what I am saying here is past tense. As I said earlier. I havent had an issue with any of those assembly files since the release of X5. I am not sure what is different. Maybe it was a miracle.

 

I havent had to program one of these assemblies in about four years or so and cant say how things would work out now.

 

I do have the new PC now though and wouldnt mind giving it a shot.

[neurosis]

This was a nice way to start my morning.

[Jroc85]

This was a nice way to start my morning.

At least you get to go home early.

[Tony35]

wow!

im using V7 in X6

[mayday]

Wow Tony, way to get off the X6 swamp buggy

how's 7 working out?

[GoetzInd]

wow!

im using V7 in X6

 

Not only that, but you are contouring with a threading boring bar!

[mayday]

but you are contouring with a threading boring bar

 

that must be the new Mill / Turn

 

[Tony35]

Wow Tony, way to get off the X6 swamp buggyhow's 7 working out?

works just fine

 

 

Not only that, but you are contouring with a threading boring bar!

and you guys think X6 has bugs

 

 

that must be the new Mill / Turn

 

V7 mill/turn

[neurosis]

this is really starting to become a very xxxxty morning.

 

Problem signature:
 Problem Event Name:	APPCRASH
 Application Name:	Mastercam.exe
 Application Version:	15.0.4.3
 Application Timestamp:	4eeafbe8
 Fault Module Name:	MCVerify.dll
 Fault Module Version:	15.0.4.3
 Fault Module Timestamp:	4eeafbf9
 Exception Code:	c0000005
 Exception Offset:	000000000027801b
 OS Version:	6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
 Locale ID:	1033
 Additional Information 1:	64fd
 Additional Information 2:	64fd1e106371145c5d4a74df6f0b7218
 Additional Information 3:	6f25
 Additional Information 4:	6f25ef8a57fcf3834c13fe76d52ef976

[peon]

Tony, how did you become a beta tester of X7? Hahahha

[Tony35]

Tony, how did you become a beta tester of X7? Hahahha

i would tell you but then i would have to kill ya

[Aeroguy]

wow!

im using V7 in X6

 

I would love to know how you can get anything to work with all those different programs running. Your taskbar looks like it's packed !

[BenK]

That is Windows 7 you can pin those icons on your task bar, if you look closely not all of them were running.

[Tony35]

I would love to know how you can get anything to work with all those different programs running. Your taskbar looks like it's packed !

 

 

That is Windows 7 you can pin those icons on your task bar, if you look closely not all of them were running.

 

+1

[Jroc85]

I would love to know how you can get anything to work with all those different programs running. Your taskbar looks like it's packed !

Get with the times man.

[mayday]

That is Windows 7 you can pin those icons on your task bar

 

Just like your toolbar in MC, except in Win 7 they stay put

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Just like your toolbar in MC, except in Win 7 they stay put

 

 

Unless you're smart enough to add the quick launch back in. I hated that about Windows 7... so rewired it!

[Aeroguy]

Get with the times man.

 

Sorry, but I am still stuck using XP

[Jroc85]

[neurosis]

Unless you're smart enough to add the quick launch back in. I hated that about Windows 7... so rewired it!

 

 

That was the first thing that I did after loading Win7. I cant stand my desktop being cluttered. I keep all of my frequently used programs in the quick launch or pinned to the start menu.

 

I have ONE icon on my desktop. That is the garbage can.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

I have a few more icons that that but it bugs me to have a lot of icons on my desktop too. I have fewer than 20...