Other cam software

[Mick]

It's interesting the difference between regions. NX happily offered us a 90 day demo license. Maybe different markets get different responses. That shouldn't be the case, but maybe it is.

[Mick]

My money and time would be better spent on Vericut.

 

We bought Vericut about six months ago. Some of the best money spent. Vericut is a great product, and really powerful at what it does. And CGTech's US support is fantastic.

[Watcher]

^This. Featurecam, NX, Powermill, TopSolid, etc, all look pretty awesome. Though wandering through all the different booths at IMTS, I didn't see anything from any of the other software that would compensate for the additional time of even learning the software, let alone paying for it. If we were making lots of impellers, I'd be hot and heavy for Hypermill. If we were making lots of molds, I'd be hot and heavy for Powermill. MTM? Maybe Esprit or Topsolid. But we're not doing that stuff. For the type of parts we do (complex hogouts, thin walls, 3D production stuff, etc) my money and time would be better spent on Vericut.

 

Joe, I think you hit the nail right in the head. It´s important to know the weaknesses and strengths of each solution. I agree with you in every option you mentioned above. There´s a plenty of tools out there and the challenge is to know when and which is suitable for a given niche. It seems to me that for the work you do, Mastercam is a good companion.

[mkd]

fear the man who has only one gun

.

.

.

.he probably knows how to use it...

[Müřlıń®]

fear the man who has only one gun

.

.

.

.he probably knows how to use it...

 

+1

 

One thing is for certain though....nothing remains the same.

 

In the upcoming years I would expect Mastercam to acquire or design and incorporate some of the tools other cad systems have a monopoly on at present. Or even perhaps integrate better tools.

 

They always do

 

Am I biased....of perhaps.....

[Mick]

In the upcoming years I would expect Mastercam to acquire or design and incorporate some of the tools other cad systems have a monopoly on at present. Or even perhaps integrate better tools.

 

 

And likewise the other CAD/CAM systems will incorporate some of the features and tools Mastercam has. I guess it is the continuing circle

[Newbeeee™]

...other software that would compensate for the additional time of even learning the software, let alone paying for it.

+ another one.

Learning curve is always underestimated (and therefore can cost owners a fortune). Productivity is the name of the game so another seat of the same would be my vote (ref the original question).

[Mick]

But, once that new system is learnt, you end up with another set of tools in your toolbox. That isn't to be underestimated. It is just like machine tools. Some people stick with one brand because of familiarity (which is good reason some times), and others will try different brands, based on what the machine offers. I've been in both situations before, and both have merit.

 

Right now, I am going through just that, the re-learning of another system. It sure is an interesting experience.

[robk]

It sure is an interesting experience.

 

One of the reasons I accepted the position @ my current company about 6+ years ago was because I had the opportuninty to learn different software. I had a choice between 3 different companys' and in the end it was the challenge to learn something new that won the game.

[gcode]

Another expense involved in adding or changing CAM systems is post proccessors.

In a shop like this , with multiple machines and a controls the cost involved in

developing and proving out new posts can far exceed the price of the new CAM system.

Frequently, when ALL the costs are added up, the new and better CAM system isn't ....

[Mick]

That is a good point on the posts. Especially if you have put a lot of work into the posts you have for your current system. The more varied machine tools you have, the bigger the cost will be in obtaining or creating those posts. And without working posts, your system wont be producing code.

As an example, we have four machine tools, with a fifth on the way. Out of the total of five machine machines (two lathes, one four axis mill, on five axis mill and one mill turn), posts were available for both lathes, the mill turn. The four axis mill is available as a three axis but needs the fourth axis added. The five axis needs to be created. If there were non posts available, it would have been a tougher decision

[Newbeeee™]

One of the reasons I accepted the position @ my current company about 6+ years ago was because I had the opportuninty to learn different software. I had a choice between 3 different companys' and in the end it was the challenge to learn something new that won the game.

Rob - I can see this from an operator/user point of view. Move on and gain more experience with either software or hardware.

But from an owners viewpoint with $'s spent on software, maintenance, training, and dialling in posts, the last thing I would want is to disrupt this situation with effectively starting again. It takes a lot of testing time to get the confidence to 'post and go'....

 

However, I can understand if work type starts changing, but how many companies would change from say 3/4 axis 'box' work (like Joe's and what we do) to blisks?

You would have to have big pockets to buy a couple of machines (foolish to buy just the one for a production contract as you know it will go down or be banged at the wrong time), then there's the BIG 5ax learning curve, plus the software 5ax learning curve. Something like blade expert would probably look cheap then compared to buying/learning curve of hypermill (or any other system).

I can see both sides to this, but it really depends upon which side of the desk you are ie, the one gramming or the one paying for it.

[robk]

+1^

Very well put.

[gcode]

but it really depends upon which side of the desk you are ie, the one gramming or the one paying for it.

 

or the one who has to explain/justify it to an owner who knows nothing about CAD/CAM

[Tyler Robertson]

Oh boy....nothing like an unbiased opinion!

The arguement of picking a system due to the number of local users is such BS. A lot of people eat at Mcdonalds.....doesn't mean its the best.

 

in the defense of the very knowledgeable posters, and of Ray - he's asking questions on a specifically mastercam related forum: A comparison to asking about a mustang on a GM forum was made and is probably pretty accurate. Or, ask about an alternative to the mustang on a ford dealer forum (not just enthusiat) but a dealer .. because that's what In-House said. A better place to ask might be cnc-zone.com but in any case I think posters on the forum are giving honest opinions. Ray works for In-house as do I, but he's also been on both sides of the fence so I'm glad he's chimed in. a lot of employees at In-House were at one point customers and sometimes vice versa.

With all that said - I'm not about to move the thread or anything (others here might chime in differently.. but hey, its monday), and I'd like to offer my input.. if I don't get jumped on!

 

Mastercam is a tool like any other tool ... machines, robots, controls .. it just happens to reside on a computer. Software gets looked at under a different lens but it usually can be thought of like any other mfg'ing tool.

 

hsm400 - it seems like you are arguing that Mastercam isn't the best, and that people are just not admitting that. For some people, it is the best fit and I think that's important with any product.

 

Before you jump on me I'm going to do something I will probably get flak for: From my experience I like what I see with NX and Powermill, (I have also used the CAD side of NX in the past).

If I had to get something in addition to Mastercam I would get one of those. Except I have no experience with lathes so I suck! I've also never been handed a quote for one of them.

If I was judging purely on some cool features - I love mastercam, but there's some neat stuff in other software. It's important to weigh everything.

 

From someone who has created programs in competitive sales situations (I'm not a sales guy, I'm an applications guy but I make programs for sales) ... I have used Mastercam to beat out other CAD/CAM systems for some particular application .. when I thought full well that the competing software should have had the functionality to wipe the floor with me. At the end of the day,

Mastercam was creating the programs needed to make the machine move, and the other software didn't. Was the other software better?

 

What merit then is used to judge a tool as better than another?

 

From what I've seen .. if I quit tomorrow (and judging how my day has been going that's an increasing possibility!) and I was buying a CAM system for a make-believe custom guitar company (a guy can dream) I would consider the following..

 

1. Speed of programming

 

This is usually who's driving it or who SHOWS you how to drive it.. which comes down to personnel later, but pound for pound can you make YOUR parts in X amount of time? Some features on one CAM software might be incredible for mold machining and useless for plasma cutting. At Hops & Barley Guitarworks, we do all of it because our guitars are insane. some of them are even motorcycles that are also guitars.

 

2. Flexiblity.

 

We make a lot of different geometry. Our guitar shop also sometimes does mods to customer guitars and are subcontractors for other guitar mfg'ers. Can the system handle a variety of different CAD, in both variety, size and QUALITY?

does it choke with weird surfaces or rough cad we get from our customers? what if we find tooling that we like better tomorrow? what if we buy a new machine? what if? what if? what if?

 

 

3.. Support

 

Everyone screws up, or computers are set up differently, or things go down, or something wasn't set up right ... how long will it take to get a response back? If we need someone on-site, what kind of hoops do we have to jump through and what's the cost? How long will it take in general?

 

3. Post-Processor

 

Machine needs to move right and safe. I want the code standardized for our company with the best practises we follow. Guitar-shop aside, I've heard many horror stories about companies investing in a cad/cam system only to be sidelined for months/years/shelved for good because they couldn't get a post-processor created for their machines. This is probably one of this single most important parts of purchasing CAM because even if the software

will automatically read your mind to design parts from the future on saturn. .... if the code it generates won't make the machine move... yeah.

 

our guitar shop bought a bunch of used machines with weirdo controls and now we're kicking ourselves but this guy Larry we're looking at hiring says he can code post-processors. great!

 

4. Machine Simulation

 

Goes with post - depends on the complexity. for our regular 3-axis stuff we don't really care because it generally just does what we see in the main window. But our 5-axis machine .. forget about it! we need to see what's going to happen when it hits the floor.

 

5. Personnel Knowledge

 

We really want to hire Larry because based on expectations, experience, personality fit and abilities, he's just awesome and we're lucky he's even considering working with us. The problem is that he only knows a CAM system we don't own The upside is he rock solid at it. We know an extra seat will costs X,XXX ... and might have a couple different standards but hell we want Larry with us so we'll buy him his toolbox.

 

6. Training availability and total costs

 

Turns out Larry decided to marry someone he met on the internet in the UK and he's outta here. Now what? We need to get someone up to speed. How fast is that going to take? what are the resources? Were they written by someone fluent in english? how far do we have to travel.

 

 

7.Price

 

at the end of the day, my accountant (also my brother in law) is going to be asking questions. Does the price-point make sense for what we need out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This started to get really long and I realized I needed to get some other things done by the end of the day, I'll add more later if it seems useful to anyone .. probably just common purchasing sense

[Müřlıń®]

Nothing wrong with having different softwares in the toolbox. If yo have alot of money to invest in building the nessessary skills, seems logical. (I have not found anything that Mastercam cannot accomplish competitivly...yet)

 

However the guy who started this post said he was doing 2-4 axis work with some lathe.

 

This does not seem specialized to me.

 

It seemed like job shop to me.

My post was to him.

 

I have almost 3 decades of experience in this trade. Started old school and had to learn cad cam on my own.

 

No one sent me to school, no one pays the bills except me. From where I sit, I would not invest in another software since I already own the best.

I only use Masteram for 3-axis. 3-d complex molds and dies. All surface machining, job shop work I do not make hundreds of parts from the same program. My programs have to be done right the first time. I could care less if it takes 10 minutes or even an hour extra to run a particular path since cycle time are mostly irelivant. I do not have time to deal with errors. But from what I have observed between the limited software I have learned to use, Mastercam generates pretty kicka$$ programs. Cycle times are very competitive.

 

Post processors, downtime, learning curves, scrapped parts, cost of training, time involved in training, the job pool, welding costs, heat treat costs....man the list is huge...all this is involved in making a profit.

 

it seems another seat of Mastercam and another warm body to make use of it would be more productive.

 

Like others have stated, if you're doing specialized work, it makes sense to invest in more specialized software. But this is not the case in this instance.

 

just my opinion of course....

 

Well....EDIT...looks like Tyler beat me to it....

[Newbeeee™]

Before you jump on me I'm going to do something I will probably get flak for: From my experience I like what I see with NX and Powermill, (I have also used the CAD side of NX in the past).

One of my customers (big mcam user) bought Powermill for the 5ax side. It all looked great and wizzy and it did some real good things than mcam 'couldn't' (perhaps didn't maybe better?)

After a year or so as far as I know they have migrated back to mcam. I will ask why.

[gcode]

I've ssen a couple of shops jump into another brand of CAM.

They one that come back to Mastercam usually do so over post/support issues.

People don't realize how good and how customizable Mastercam posts are until

they start working with other brands.

[Rotary Ninja]

It's funny what this thread has turned into. Is Shawn even reading still? He has yet to respond to a single post

 

I want to ask the question "Why secondary software?". I am really curious what there is to gain. At least why Shawn feels the need for it anyway. Because at my current job I do 4th axis work. I wish we had a 5 axis so I could struggle with programming it too. But we don't. And I really can't imagine what - in the 4th axis world of things - would create a need for something other than Mastercam. Is it to attract other talent to the playing field?

[MotorCityMinion]

"I want to ask the question "Why secondary software?""

 

For the same reason we have multiple tool paths of the same type in MC. Where one may fail, the other shines. My favorite tool path for roughing in MC is peelmill. I get the exact entry, exit, cut widths I want, where I want them, in the order that I want them but it won't do 3d. Opti this or that, great for 3d and reduced programming, but I find myself occasionally asking WTF is that? The same can be said about individual tool paths in other packages.

 

I've seen HSMWorks, Cimco HSM performance pack, Volumill, and even Surfcam at times produce better tool paths in certain situations. Another forum member is having trouble with an injection mold. Tool paths fine with V9 through X2, Same part in X3 forward is giving him crap.

 

Like wise with MC, where the others might produce less than stellar tool paths, MC may come through for me.

 

IMO....

 

Volumill will usually not leave a thin walled standing post as it cuts a given area, where as HSMWorks and Cimco will work their way towards that last piece, then snap it off before it machines it off, hence more code with the Volumill as it tends to loop across the width and HSMWorks prefers the longest cut, less code and less time. Why care? Because if I'm machining aluminum, I don't worry about the piece breaking off and causing damage. In tool steel, different story. In the short time I used VM, it appeared to do a better job with tool steels but also required more screwing around to get what I need. So now what. Let's say I have a shop that runs mostly aluminum. I bought VM, found out I like HSMWorks better. Buy the HSMWorks and now I have a choice on what to use going to into a given situation.

 

HSMWorks. I love most of their tool paths for 3d work except MORPH BETWEEN CURVES, very similar to MC's SF Blend (my favorite MC 3d tool path) but with less than satisfactory results. I don't like the tool library and there seems to be too much screwing around to set things up in HSMWorks relative to MC. Manipulating geometry in SW can be awkward compared to MC. Working in SolidWorks, I get better surfaces in short order and it's nice not to have to bop back and forth between apps.

 

Secondary software? How about a seat of MC4SW. Best of both worlds.

 

My point is, having a secondary CAM package that can compliment your existing software is always a good thing. A lot of this depends on the programmer as well. Does he have an engineering staff with good modeling skills at his disposal or does he have to wear multiple hats and do it all? That being the case, having a good mid-level CAD package available on demand is an attractive option. Throw in some integrated CAM with that CAD and now were rockin.

[Tyler Robertson]

A lot of this depends on the programmer as well. Does he have an engineering staff with good modeling skills at his disposal or does he have to wear multiple hats and do it all?

 

can I + a million to this? The times I've had the pleasure of someone who had a team with solid CAD skills are the best working times in my life. more problems get solved upstream that make life for programming easier.

 

I've spent the last day fighting a file from CATIA that is just.. urgh.