Improvements & Advantages

[skyking01x]

Starting with MC X4 MU3 what are the improvements and/or advantages of either X5 or X6? We do mainly 3-axis contouring with 4th axis positioning. Max spindle speeds on our mills is only 3500 rpm. X4 works well for what we do and I'm wondering if it's necessary or desirable to step up and spend more $

[Joe788]

Starting with MC X4 MU3 what are the improvements and/or advantages of either X5 or X6? We do mainly 3-axis contouring with 4th axis positioning. Max spindle speeds on our mills is only 3500 rpm. X4 works well for what we do and I'm wondering if it's necessary or desirable to step up and spend more $

 

Optirough is huge if you're doing 3D stuff. Stock model is a big plus as well for the right kind of parts.

[crazy^millman]

That and the fact if you want to work with current CAD systems you need the current translators.

[gcode]

Here is a list of enhancements organised by versions.

you can see what has been added since X4

IMO x64 support alone is worth the price of upgrading

[Guest]

Starting with MC X4 MU3 what are the improvements and/or advantages of either X5 or X6? We do mainly 3-axis contouring with 4th axis positioning. Max spindle speeds on our mills is only 3500 rpm. X4 works well for what we do and I'm wondering if it's necessary or desirable to step up and spend more $

 

 

There are toolpaths and tools in later version that will absolutely be upgrades from X4 MU3

 

Can you take FULL advantage of them, no, you're limited because of your equipment, it does not however mean there is no gains to be had. Something like Opti-Rough will save you time just by the motion of the path, as will the Dynamic Milling paths. Couple increases there with translators for the latest files, the X64 bit architecture and there are a myriad of reasons to stay updated.

[skyking01x]

There are toolpaths and tools in later version that will absolutely be upgrades from X4 MU3

 

Can you take FULL advantage of them, no, you're limited because of your equipment, it does not however mean there is no gains to be had. Something like Opti-Rough will save you time just by the motion of the path, as will the Dynamic Milling paths. Couple increases there with translators for the latest files, the X64 bit architecture and there are a myriad of reasons to stay updated.

 

 

Thanks, guys for your replies!

[skyking01x]

There are toolpaths and tools in later version that will absolutely be upgrades from X4 MU3

 

Can you take FULL advantage of them, no, you're limited because of your equipment, it does not however mean there is no gains to be had. Something like Opti-Rough will save you time just by the motion of the path, as will the Dynamic Milling paths. Couple increases there with translators for the latest files, the X64 bit architecture and there are a myriad of reasons to stay updated.

 

Will MC X6 run feasibly on a 2.16 Ghz Core2 w/4 gb running XPSP3? How about 3.2 Ghz P4 w/4 gb running XPSP3?

[Guest]

Will MC X6 run feasibly on a 2.16 Ghz Core2 w/4 gb running XPSP3? How about 3.2 Ghz P4 w/4 gb running XPSP3?

 

Yes, obviously the more horsepower you can throw at it, the better but it should run effectively

 

Do be aware, with the release of X7 early next year, Windows XP and Vista will no longer be supported

 

only Windows 7 and only x64 Windows 8

 

If you're not running a x64 bit computer "today" especially in CAD/CAM business applications, you';re leaving a lot on the table

[skyking01x]

Yes, obviously the more horsepower you can throw at it, the better but it should run effectively

 

Do be aware, with the release of X7 early next year, Windows XP and Vista will no longer be supported

 

only Windows 7 and only x64 Windows 8

 

If you're not running a x64 bit computer "today" especially in CAD/CAM business applications, you';re leaving a lot on the table

 

What significant improvements would X7 hold for me and my work/equipment?

[Guest]

Too early to say at this point, it's not even in Beta yet.

 

By the same argument, you're trying to make on equipment, many argue the same way about moving off of V9.

 

If they want to run V9, it'll do much but I will machine circles around that all day long. It's a technology change and it's changing on all fronts, faster and faster.

 

Strong statement it is, I'll stand by it though.

 

Not trying at all to be argumentative, just how I see things from my street.

 

JM2C

[Jayson Kramer]

I will say that using the P4 it will run but on the High speed paths for example it will not take advantage of a second core for processing as there is not a second core to use.

[skyking01x]

I will say that using the P4 it will run but on the High speed paths for example it will not take advantage of a second core for processing as there is not a second core to use.

 

So, if you don't have a second core the High Speed path will be corrupted or somehow different than a path generated by a P4? Or will it just take longer, help me out? I didn't realize there are differences other than comp time. I don't know about all you academicians but in my little hole in the wall everything has to be cost effective or I can't do it! I know this stuff is all cool, neat, rad, and all the other adjectives for the latest techniques, software, and equipment. I'm just as guilty as the next guy in buying something because it's better, faster, cooler, etc. and not necessarily producing a larger bottom line.

[Jayson Kramer]

The paths will work just fine it will crunch a little slower and it will not give you the option to program or other thinks for example while they crunch on the other core. it is about speed that's all.

So this is not in anyway a show stopper.

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

So, if you don't have a second core the High Speed path will be corrupted or somehow different than a path generated by a P4?

The ONLY difference you should ever see is processing time is slower when you can't spread the load across multiple processors/cores.

 

Or will it just take longer, help me out? I didn't realize there are differences other than comp time.

There are differences but not in the end result. The difference is the exact path taken to acheive the end goal - code.

 

I don't know about all you academicians but in my little hole in the wall everything has to be cost effective or I can't do it!

Trust me, it is NOT cost effective to maintain old software and hardware. Take alook at the benchmark topic if you doubt. Look on the first page then compare the number on the last page. Those are hard numbers. Some of those old PC's are taking like 5 minutes to crunch that thing while some of us do it in less than a minute. So who can't use a 400% decrease in toolpath generation time?

[gcode]

The ONLY difference you should ever see is processing time is slower when you can't spread the load across multiple processors/cores.

 

 

There are differences but not in the end result. The difference is the exact path taken to acheive the end goal - code.

 

Trust me, it is NOT cost effective to maintain old software and hardware. Take alook at the benchmark topic if you doubt. Look on the first page then compare the number on the last page. Those are hard numbers. Some of those old PC's are taking like 5 minutes to crunch that thing while some of us do it in less than a minute. So who can't use a 400% decrease in toolpath generation time?

 

My first run at the benchmark file was in 2007, running a Dell 360 workstation , Win XP and 2 gig of ram.

Processing time was 11.5 minutes. Now days, I have a 2 year old $800 Asus gaming laptop that runs the benchmark

in a minute and a half.

Some of this improvement is in the hardware and some is in Mastercam.

I think the biggest factor is x64 support that was introduced in X6.

[Jayson Kramer]

gcode the 360 was a dual core correct and it took 11.5 wow that is long. I got rid of two of them last year and do not remember them taking that long but min's for sure compared to my 49 sec now.

[gcode]

it was 3 gig P4 Extreme Edition dual core

[Guest CNC Apps Guy 1]

Hardware does make a significant contribution. My old Dell lappy had a platter HDD in it. WHen I changed to SSD HD... holy that boosted performance, even on the benchmark. I'd hav eto bo bach through and look but I think I saw a 24% boost at least. That was a while ago.