"Dangerously _________" .... REALLY? LOL

[?Mark]

There are issues, more so with this version then previous but some comments/posts here are just silly.

 

"Dangerously ____________" ....REALLY? LOL

 

My parts are no less complicated than anyone's here, fairly large 20-80MB all thin walled (.039"), not a straight feature on them and 99% surfacing and 4axis simultaneous machining. I use high speed roughing and finish routines ALL the time...

The variety of machines we have is just crazy (all the way from big pallet train HMC'S and mac-turn to little Robos) and we post old and new jobs between machines all the time. All posts are based on mpmaster and edited here except for a mac-turn and some right angle heads...

It's all "Post and go"...

 

I think the complaining is getting a little out of hand here and If some of you expect mastercam to make coffee for you I think it's time to look elsewhere.

If I had to complain even half us much as some members I know I would be using different software already...

Jeezz...<roll-ayes>>

[YoDoug®]

IN

[K2csq7]

BEFORE

[Mr. M]

THE

[Mic6]

LOCK

[Aeroguy]

I hardly find it unjustified for users to demand and expect improvments for something that they PAY FOR. If you gave your customer a piece of crap and told him it's "relatively close" to what he wanted, do you really think he would pay you ?

 

Buddy, its not as easy as just going out and buying new software. Companies have invested a whole pile of money and time and training in MC, so just up and moving to something else is very difficult if not downright impossible. Some places literally have thousands of repeat jobs that were programmed in MC, so reprogramming them is not an option. Most companies simply don't want to change pakages because of the expense and training involved in doing so.

 

And in my opinion, the complaining is not getting out of hand.... it is long overdue.

[Josh Kinney -Elite Engineering]

Mark,

I have to say your post is pretty insulting. I'm glad it's working so well for you but obviously others are having major issues, myself included.

 

Josh-

[Goldorak]

 

 

i got to live and program with all these bugs

 

but if a can save a few hours if i don't have to always find a work around, i will be happy and my boss too

 

we are all capable to get the job done , but not necessarily the fastest way

[Josh Kinney -Elite Engineering]

Mark,

I can only hope you don't experience MasterCam randomly outputting an H0 and sending the spindle at rapid Z straight into the vise. I have and I have to say X6 has made this situation even more real.

 

Josh-

[K2csq7]

 

^^+1

 

I can see where Mark is coming from (I hope).... choice of words could have been "Dangerously Unstable".

 

Lets edit both topic titles & move on...

[Joe788]

 

If I had to complain even half us much as some members I know I would be using different software already...

 

 

This.

 

CAM software is cheap in the grand scheme of things.

[GoetzInd]

You're right. Entering values and expecting them to remain there is way too much to ask.

 

PS I'm a MC fan.

 

Mike

[Joe788]

Mark,

I can only hope you don't experience MasterCam randomly outputting an H0 and sending the spindle at rapid Z straight into the vise. I have and I have to say X6 has made this situation even more real.

 

Josh-

 

Josh, are you changing H offsets in the toolpaths? I've never had this happen, not even a single time, from V9 through X6. (Knocking on wood expecting to go ram a spindle through a tombstone now that I've said that )

[Brando]

its called fustration buddy!!!,,, i agree some things could have been better put,

you've never been mad and said things you regret later?? im sure you have

some people are better at biting their tongue then others

we are all human here

 

i would never expect mastercam to make me coffee?? but i do expect it to change tool numbers when i tell it to, or keep a tool holder synced with the tool i select

 

i would say thats par for the course when i pay ***** a yr for maintaince fees,, yes no??

Edited February 23, 2012 by gcode
TOS violation

[Thee Rickster ™]

If I had to complain even half us much as some members I know I would be using different software already...

 

After purchasing X6 maintenance and being in the middle of an expensive move, there is no

chance of new software for a while since I am the one who has to answer to the owners

why X6 cost me to miss deadlines on 2 of 3 jobs that I had plenty of time if X6 didn't err in its ways

 

I apologize for expecting the software to be more efficient then the previous version which also cost

me to lose valuable time programming because of the flaws.

 

there, happy now?

[neurosis]

There are issues, more so with this version then previous but some comments/posts here are just silly.

 

"Dangerously retarded" ....REALLY? LOL

 

My parts are no less complicated than anyone's here, fairly large 20-80MB all thin walled (.039"), not a straight feature on them and 99% surfacing and 4axis simultaneous machining. I use high speed roughing and finish routines ALL the time...

The variety of machines we have is just crazy (all the way from big pallet train HMC'S and mac-turn to little Robos) and we post old and new jobs between machines all the time. All posts are based on mpmaster and edited here except for a mac-turn and some right angle heads...

It's all "Post and go"...

 

I think the complaining is getting a little out of hand here and If some of you expect mastercam to make coffee for you I think it's time to look elsewhere.

If I had to complain even half us much as some members I know I would be using different software already...

Jeezz...<roll-ayes>>

 

 

I am happy that things work so well for you.

 

Expect the software to make coffee for you? Really?

 

Is it too much to expect that a bug that has been around for five full versions of the software get fixed? You think that complaining about a bug that has been around that long in ridiculous? I admit, the topic was silly, but it was meant to be.

 

I expect the software to not post a different D value than what is clearly entered in to an operation. You do not see where that could cause problems?

 

And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with how complicated the parts are.

 

What is silly to me, is that so many people are so tolerable of this sh!t. Some of these things are not complicated. Changing a parts operations to use diameter offsets that match the tool number should be a basic modification. As it stands you are just rolling the dice. It takes hours to do what should be a 5 minute job. If you dont see what is wrong with that then I dont know what else to say.

[neurosis]

This.

 

CAM software is cheap in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

Its not the price of the CAM software alone that is the issue. 10 years of part files that need to be converted. Training. You know the drill.

 

We are still dealing with part file conversions from Cimatron and this is 10 years later.

[?Mark]

Read the first line of my post....

 

I see a lot of problems here with the PST not being set up correctly and THAT has nothing to do with MC.

 

It's the "mc is retarded" mentality before even trying to figure out what's going on that is retarded...

Conclusion before investigation...

 

"its called fustration buddy!!!"

ROFL...

 

I'm all for constructive criticism, but don't care for the _____ 'jump the gun, burn on the stake" kind...

[MotorCityMinion]

IN

BEFORE

THE

LOCK

 

The CIRCLE rules.

 

I wanted to time this at 3.14 PM but couldn't wait.

[Bill Henderson]

Its been an old habit of mine to always have the NC edit on when I post. I have gotten in the habit of tool next all the way down just to double check.

 

I used to work at a place that had a funky post and this was back when you could leave the the D values Zero. Back then the post would spit out the tool number on all offsets. (if the post was setup that way).

 

Where I am now I find myself using the same tool and using different D values for various operations (similar but different sized holes or slots with tight tolerances).

 

Limited tool holders and limited tooling makes this work. So... forcing the post to make the value wouldn't help me.

 

However, anytime I edit a tool or a program I re-check all of my settings. I figure we are paid to make sure what we send out is what we intend on sending out, so better safe than sorry.

 

If it gets past me and the setup sheet, my setup guys should find it on the setup sheet.

 

I have used a few other cam packages and granted they may not be the super high dollar high end packages available but they have their issues as well. For instance, not even noticing that I have two different tools with the same tool number and it posts it out anyway.

 

There are a ton of shops out there that can not afford the highend stuff someone else keeps spouting off about.

 

We are the programmers we are the failsafe.

 

Even if someone sets up my job on a machine... I double check their setup. Why? Because it all falls back on me.

[#Rekd™]

Not sure if I am reading everything correctly or not....was the original topic complaining about Mastercam and the tool offsets (dia)?

 

Sure a post modification will fix or help notify of a problem... but why should another program be needed to fix the problems with another?

[Aeroguy]

I have used a few other cam packages and granted they may not be the super high dollar high end packages available but they have their issues as well. For instance, not even noticing that I have two different tools with the same tool number and it posts it out anyway.

 

Are you telling me MC is supposed to tell you if you have 2 tools set as the same number? Because this happens to me sometimes when I have to renumber tools and it just posts out with no warnings at all.

 

Actually it will make all my tools the same number if I tell it to and it doesn't make a peep about it.

[neurosis]

Read the first line of my post....

 

I see a lot of problems here with the PST not being set up correctly and THAT has nothing to do with MC.

 

It's the "mc is retarded" mentality before even trying to figure out what's going on that is retarded...

Conclusion before investigation...

 

"its called fustration buddy!!!"

ROFL...

 

I'm all for constructive criticism, but don't care for the _____ 'jump the gun, burn on the stake" kind...

 

 

I understand. I did read the first line of your post. Again, that topic was meant to sound ridiculous. And YES, it was out of frustration.

 

 

That is not the only glitch that causes something that should be trivial to be a time consuming job.

 

Im not sure what you mean by investigated? I have looked in to this problem for three software releases now. I have talked to our reseller about it. I have posted several topics on this forum about it. It is a REAL issue. One that could potentially scrap parts or damage tooling. That sh!t gets expensive. This should not even be possible. Let alone for this long without being dealt with.

 

 

Yes, I am frustrated. I am truly sorry if you find that ridiculous or if it annoys you. This stuff cost me large amounts of time. Time that could be spent earning money for our company.

[Bill Henderson]

Are you telling me MC is supposed to tell you if you have 2 tools set as the same number? Because this happens to me sometimes when I have to renumber tools and it just posts out with no warnings at all.

 

Actually it will make all my tools the same number if I tell it to and it doesn't make a peep about it.

 

Mine does.

[Bill Henderson]

On X5 it would give you the warning at posting.

 

On X6 for whatever reason??? It warns you at tool creation or editing a tool number and NOT at post.