Ok Cnc Software Geeks: Mach Sim Lathe needs

[tsaladyga]

I am looking to get a Mach Sim for a 2 axis VTL. Anybody from Mastercam land have any ideas why after 7 versions of X we still don't have Mach Sim files for turning?

Sure would be nice to see travel limits or crash moves in those machines as well. Especially since our business is about 75% turning and we have about 35 Turning centers. Maybe one of the Gurus can break from their golf game to create one?

Any ideas would be totally appreciated.

Thanks guys

Todd

[#Rekd™]

I would seriously look into Vericut.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

FWIW

 

The new Mill-Turn Product already has the architecture for this.

The biggest hurdle is getting accurate Machine Models and data to properly setup the machines.

 

I know Pedro and his team at CNC are working hard on this stuff.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the dev teams at CNC are listening to user feedback.

Be patient.

Good things are coming.

[Mick]

I would seriously look into Vericut.

 

I agree. For serious simulation and verification, Vericut is the one. We wouldn't be without it.

[gcode]

I don't even use Verify for 2D lathe work. Backplot is more than enough.

I doubt I would mess with a 2D lathe machine sim even if it were available.

[DODGERFAN]

I don't even use Verify for 2D lathe work. Backplot is more than enough.

I doubt I would mess with a 2D lathe machine sim even if it were available.

I've never heard of anybody using a sim for lathe. For a mill turn, yes but 2D lathe NO... My 2 pennies....

[Mick]

It depends on what you're wanting to simulate.

 

Accurate cycle times, accurately approach/retraction moves, testing of macros all lend themselves to something like Vericut. However, if all that is required is simple checking of the toolpath then yes, Vericut is overkill.

 

I haven't used Vericut for any actual two axis lathe work for about five years.

[tsaladyga]

2D Lathe is great for Travel limits and crash moves, Backplot doesn't show those. The company I am with now puts all the accountability on the programmers(It sucks and I am currently changing the way they do things), but we a have 2 new programmers that are just starting out, even though 2D lathe is simple, it isn't for the newbies and I thought a 2D Mach Sim would and could certainly come in handy. I think Vericut is way to complex for what we need, Which is why I can't understand why Cnc software never made a simple 2D lathe (horizontal and vertical) Sim file.

[Craig-B]

I would like to see CNC add something for turret lathe with Y axis and live tooling. It would be nice to see the simulation, and collision checking when you have a turret with turning tools, drills, boring bars and live tools. You can’t see if you have enough clearance when you back or verify because it only shows the one tool and not the turret This all can be programmed on the standard lathe package, but not simulated with machine SIM you shouldn’t need the Mill-Turn product just for that.

[chip]

:POPCORN:

[#Rekd™]

The entire lathe unit is long over due for a complete makeover.

[chip]

Wasn't that the point of 'Machine Definition'. I thought they were starting to log machine information.... Looks like that got put on the back burner for FBM?

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

Someone from CNC should really address this but I'll give it my best.

 

The new Mill-Turn architecture, in my humble opinion, will ultimately replace the current lathe product.

I can't speak to specifics but I can tell you that there is a lot of work going on at CNC for this architecture and on lathe in general.

The biggest hurdle is getting the technical specifications and model data.

Some companies are more cooperative than others.

If a Machine Tool Builder won't provide the model data, CNC has to create it themselves.

This is not a small task.

 

I can also tell you that the new machine simulation in MT already supports what you are looking for.

A demo from your reseller will confirm this.

Good things are definitely coming and it appears to me that CNC is trying to have as complete

a solution and as many machines as possible before addressing this specifically and publicly.

 

I would recommend that any user interested in mach sim for lathe contact their reseller and get a short basic demo of the new Mill-Turn module.

After seeing how it works you'll understand why I believe it's the future path for lathe.

[Jayson Kramer]

Well stated Tim. you are spot on.

[#Rekd™]

We have Vericut here. They came in with a Faro arm and took measurements off of the actual machine.

 

Siemens has come out with it's own competition to Vericut called NX CAM.

 

http://plmsource.industrysoftware.automation.siemens.com/us/2013/08/07/simulate-your-machine-tools-with-the-highest-accuracy/?stc=wwiia420000

 

I have heard there are improvements on the way and hopefully they address a lot of the deficiencies that currently exist in Lathe.

[Craig-B]

I understand if you have multiple spindles and turrets, but If you have only 1 spindle and 1 turret there is no multitasking or syncing needed, and everything can be programmed on the standard lathe package, but not simulated with Machine SIM. Why would you need the module for Mill-Turn just to do that, I think that adding the module just to do 1 spindle and 1 turret is a bit overkill just to simulate a full turret with turning tools, drills, boring bars and live tools to do machine SIM and collision checking

[gcode]

I've been programming 2 axis lathes for 20 years and never needed more than backplot to do it.

If machine sim was available for 2X lathes I doubt I'd bother to set it up, just like I never bothered to set up machine sim

for Haas 3X and 4X mills.

When you're talking about 5axis trunnion mills or multiaxis lathes, that's a whole different story.

I use machine sim all the time for our new Okuma 5X mill and it is a valuable tool

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

I understand if you have multiple spindles and turrets, but If you have only 1 spindle and 1 turret there is no multitasking or syncing needed, and everything can be programmed on the standard lathe package, but not simulated with Machine SIM. Why would you need the module for Mill-Turn just to do that, I think that adding the module just to do 1 spindle and 1 turret is a bit overkill just to simulate a full turret with turning tools, drills, boring bars and live tools to do machine SIM and collision checking

 

Again, it is my opinion that lathe will become a sub-set of Mill-Turn.

Now I am only giving my opinion and I could be totally wrong but I don't think the strategy is that difficult to see.

If CNC can accomplish what you want with a single unified and scalable system,

they'd be foolish to continue to support the current lathe product and new technology.

 

They've been justly criticized for the lack of attention to lathe in the past.

CNC is addressing your concerns but they are now thinking 10 steps ahead instead of 1.

At least that's the way I see it.

Take it for what it's worth.

 

Give them some credit for being proactive and forward thinking instead of stagnating.

[Mick]

Again, it is my opinion that lathe will become a sub-set of Mill-Turn.

Now I am only giving my opinion and I could be totally wrong but I don't think the strategy is that difficult to see.

If CNC can accomplish what you want with a single unified and scalable system,

they'd be foolish to continue to support the current lathe product and new technology.

 

They've been justly criticized for the lack of attention to lathe in the past.

CNC is addressing your concerns but they are now thinking 10 steps ahead instead of 1.

At least that's the way I see it.

Take it for what it's worth.

 

Give them some credit for being proactive and forward thinking instead of stagnating.

 

Certainly, give them credit for being proactive, but for many, they have taken far too long to address the Mill Turn functionality that has been lacking. Whilst they have improved it with the new Mill Turn addon, I know a lot of users, ourselves included are sitting here going "great, that will improve it no end, and actually have it functioning correctly... but now we are expected to pay for something that has has always been in there, but finally been fixed"

 

The whole Main-Sub spindle thing, especially when milling on the sub, and transferring stock, has been really painful to date.

[Watcher]

We have Vericut here. They came in with a Faro arm and took measurements off of the actual machine.

 

Siemens has come out with it's own competition to Vericut called NX CAM.

 

http://plmsource.ind...stc=wwiia420000

 

I have heard there are improvements on the way and hopefully they address a lot of the deficiencies that currently exist in Lathe.

 

I work for a company with thousands of NX seats and I can tell you that customize that stuff is as hard as a diamond... Lots of people pulling their hair out with that... To simulate specific cycles from machines, you have to have a C developer in-house fully trained in NX API for ISV, or then pay a bunch of money for experts customize it for you. What VERICUT or NCSIMUL can simulate out-of-the-box, they require customization (Very complex ones).

 

I don't see it as a competing product, even though some Siemens dealers unethically advertise it as so for people signing the checks...

 

Try to measure a model or make a comparison like you do in Auto-Diff - They can't. They use tesselated data that is useless for measurements.

 

VERICUT uses an internal B-Rep cut database for each primitive shape it cuts. Unless you are doing surfacing or multiaxis stuff, all other things are primitives.

 

A plane is a plane, a hole is a cylinder, a slot milled with a bull mill is a swept profile made by a cylinder/torus... this makes VERICUT more accurate than its competitors.

 

That's also the reason why NCSIMUL is faster than VERICUT. They use tesselated data and are more OpenGL based. VERICUT is still relying heavily on the Z-buffer technique to represent graphics and material removal.

 

Let alone the fact that VERICUT and NCSIMUL are MUCH richer in macros covering the features of modern controls. NX ISV development team can't follow the pace of companies like CGTech or SpringPLM in pairing with the latest features in machine tools simply because it's not their core business, nor will be. They are trained to tell you: "We can customize it for you with our C API ($$$$$$)"

 

People with complex machines like us have a lot of suffering with NX ISV. They are excellent for 2x, 3x, 3+2 and even 5 axis milling. Now put all this together in a MillTurn in the Oil&Gas business with a U-Axis unit or even HBMs with facing heads and you will see them on their knees...

 

Be careful with marketing white papers guys... they are very dangerous in this industry... - And I invite you to show me one customer with a complex MTM machine that is fully happy with NX ISV. Ask them to simulate the crankshaft or gear hobbing cycles of your millturns, and if they say yes, send me a screenshot of the contract so I can show to my kids.

 

VERICUT is a VERY WELL documented product and with some basic training you can make miracles inhouse. NCSIMUL is more closed and less documented (As most French products), but it's also a deal.

 

NX ISV = trouble IMHO - I like the idea of what it represents, but for complex machines with special features, it can be a source of pain.

[mayday]

They are way behind in the ball game, mill turn should have been in the first version of X. An un named few kick as in mill turn. CNC is lagging bad and headed in the wrong direction. The tool manager is a good idea but get rid of the old way of doing things. That's the main problem with new features. The old way is still there and people tend to stick with what they know. Problem is it conflicts with the new stuff. Quit dumping new versions out that are far from ready. CNC, your just piiissssing people off!!!!

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

Certainly, give them credit for being proactive, but for many, they have taken far too long to address the Mill Turn functionality that has been lacking. Whilst they have improved it with the new Mill Turn addon, I know a lot of users, ourselves included are sitting here going "great, that will improve it no end, and actually have it functioning correctly... but now we are expected to pay for something that has has always been in there, but finally been fixed"

 

The whole Main-Sub spindle thing, especially when milling on the sub, and transferring stock, has been really painful to date.

 

My own personal opinion is that existing Lathe & Mill-Turn customers who have been patiently waiting should be upgraded for free or at a modest fee.

 

There is no better advertising than a happy customer.

 

The whole Main-Sub spindle thing, especially when milling on the sub, and transferring stock, has been really painful to date.

 

This area actually works quite well now.

[Mick]

My own personal opinion is that existing Lathe & Mill-Turn customers who have been patiently waiting should be upgraded for free or at a modest fee.

 

There is no better advertising than a happy customer.

 

I totally agree

[Mick]

I've looked at NX's ISV in a lot of depth. I got a techo to take a model (which he hadn't seen before), toolpath it, post it, and simulate it. It was a 5 axis surface part on an Okuma MacTurn 250. It seemed to work really well, but, and it is a big but (that didn't sound right... LOL), it is dependent upon the correct "drivers" being available for the control in question. Siemens seem to have the Siemens, and Heidenhain controls well covered, and Fanuc to a lesser degree. Okumas aren't so well covered, though I have been told that is about to be resolved. Certainly with what I saw though, it worked well.

 

I've seen an Okuma Multus and an Okuma MacTurn ISV simulation, and I must say, it worked really well. The actual programme code was modified in Cimco Edit, and when the simulation was run, the programme mods were reflected. It certainly doesn't have the flexibility or capability of Vericut, thats for sure. I'm a big fan of Vericut, and while it is expensive, for us it more than pays for itself. We don't use NX's ISV, and having Vericut we don't need to. Maybe when I have time, I will starting trying it. For simpler simulations it would be a timesaver, as we wouldn't have to go into Vericut and set that up.

 

We are about to have our MU500 5 axis arrive. We sure as h*** wont be running that without putting the code through Vericut first

 

I work for a company with thousands of NX seats and I can tell you that customize that stuff is as hard as a diamond... Lots of people pulling their hair out with that... To simulate specific cycles from machines, you have to have a C developer in-house fully trained in NX API for ISV, or then pay a bunch of money for experts customize it for you. What VERICUT or NCSIMUL can simulate out-of-the-box, they require customization (Very complex ones).

 

I don't see it as a competing product, even though some Siemens dealers unethically advertise it as so for people signing the checks...

 

Try to measure a model or make a comparison like you do in Auto-Diff - They can't. They use tesselated data that is useless for measurements.

 

VERICUT uses an internal B-Rep cut database for each primitive shape it cuts. Unless you are doing surfacing or multiaxis stuff, all other things are primitives.

 

A plane is a plane, a hole is a cylinder, a slot milled with a bull mill is a swept profile made by a cylinder/torus... this makes VERICUT more accurate than its competitors.

 

That's also the reason why NCSIMUL is faster than VERICUT. They use tesselated data and are more OpenGL based. VERICUT is still relying heavily on the Z-buffer technique to represent graphics and material removal.

 

Let alone the fact that VERICUT and NCSIMUL are MUCH richer in macros covering the features of modern controls. NX ISV development team can't follow the pace of companies like CGTech or SpringPLM in pairing with the latest features in machine tools simply because it's not their core business, nor will be. They are trained to tell you: "We can customize it for you with our C API ($$$$$$)"

 

People with complex machines like us have a lot of suffering with NX ISV. They are excellent for 2x, 3x, 3+2 and even 5 axis milling. Now put all this together in a MillTurn in the Oil&Gas business with a U-Axis unit or even HBMs with facing heads and you will see them on their knees...

 

Be careful with marketing white papers guys... they are very dangerous in this industry... - And I invite you to show me one customer with a complex MTM machine that is fully happy with NX ISV. Ask them to simulate the crankshaft or gear hobbing cycles of your millturns, and if they say yes, send me a screenshot of the contract so I can show to my kids.

 

VERICUT is a VERY WELL documented product and with some basic training you can make miracles inhouse. NCSIMUL is more closed and less documented (As most French products), but it's also a deal.

 

NX ISV = trouble IMHO - I like the idea of what it represents, but for complex machines with special features, it can be a source of pain.

[MSL]

I've been programming 2 axis lathes for 20 years and never needed more than backplot to do it.

If machine sim was available for 2X lathes I doubt I'd bother to set it up, just like I never bothered to set up machine sim

for Haas 3X and 4X mills.

When you're talking about 5axis trunnion mills or multiaxis lathes, that's a whole different story.

I use machine sim all the time for our new Okuma 5X mill and it is a valuable tool

 

 

Hi gcode,

How do like your new Okuma 5X mill ?