Huge STL files in X7

[Aaron Eberhard]

I was under the impression that this slider was for visual reference only and had nothing to do with accuracy of the stl (slider at the bottom left of verify). What exactly is "medium"? Not a very technical way of describing anything. What is "save stl tolarance" than?

 

Yes, the files are 2-4 times bigger than before...I'm hitting 300mb daily....(

 

It's the same thing as old verify, in that respect. The slider is for visual reference only..... As long as you don't export the model anywhere

 

For clarification, Medium is the default position of both X6 & X7, the half-way point on the "speed/Quality" or "precision" slider on their respective platforms.

 

The slider will affect the tolerance of calculated (and therefor, displayed) part, which is what is export, so that's why it has an affect on the exported file.. The STL save tolerance is like every other tolerance, "You have this model (on screen), how close do you want to save your STL to that file?".

 

Edit: Wow, lots of activity while I was typing Please, if you're going to reference a file that's not one of the installed demo files, post it up here or send it to me in an email/PM. Thanks!

[Chris Rizzo]

We could give users the option to create a much smaller STL file from the Verify in X7, but you would run the risk of having a non water-tight STL file that might cause you problems. Do you want that option? Would a smaller model that carries some potentially bad side-effects be of use to you?

 

I'm going to say yes.

 

I'm starting to understand the improved x7 product (legitimate watertight stl's), however it isn't near commensurate of our experience. I'd say the percentage of X7 stl hassles VASTLY outnumber the non-performing restmilling situations incurred by poor x6 stls. Users have developed a certain workflow (pertaining to existing hardware), and now with these monster STL's that workflow no longer "works."

 

Either:

 

A) Users workflow has to change to accomidate the monster files. As well as hardware help.

 

B ) Mastercam has to provide a solution to retain existing workflow practices...smaller stl's. At least for a few years when hardware can catch back up.

[Aaron Eberhard]

I am not sure what the file you are using looks like but the sample I posted in the original post was just a fairly simple box with some holes.

 

......

 

If you test a simple part with large flat faces I believe you will get a larger difference because X6 would only use a few triangles to display a flat face while X7 will use hundreds of triangles to display a flat face.

 

Ron - You nailed it.. I was just able to create the perfect example file of this. Thanks!

[Cannon]

Quote

 

We could give users the option to create a much smaller STL file from the Verify in X7, but you would run the risk of having a non water-tight STL file that might cause you problems. Do you want that option? Would a smaller model that carries some potentially bad side-effects be of use to you?

 

I'm going to say yes.

 

I'm starting to understand the improved x7 product (legitimate watertight stl's), however it isn't near commensurate of our experience. I'd say the percentage of X7 stl hassles VASTLY outnumber the non-performing restmilling situations incurred by poor x6 stls. Users have developed a certain workflow (pertaining to existing hardware), and now with these monster STL's that workflow no longer "works."

 

Either:

 

A) Users workflow has to change to accomidate the monster files. In which case some sort of transition tutorial/recommendation would be VERY helpful. As well as hardware help.

 

 

B ) Mastercam has to provide a solution to retain existing workflow practices...smaller stl's. At least for a few years when hardware can catch back up.

 

I agree.

There was problems in X6 verify but at least it worked reliably to a certain level. Now In X7, i have had crashing problems also when trying to use quite simple verified stl files.

[Colin Gilchrist]

I'm going to say yes.

 

I'm starting to understand the improved x7 product (legitimate watertight stl's), however it isn't near commensurate of our experience. I'd say the percentage of X7 stl hassles VASTLY outnumber the non-performing restmilling situations incurred by poor x6 stls. Users have developed a certain workflow (pertaining to existing hardware), and now with these monster STL's that workflow no longer "works."

 

Either:

 

A) Users workflow has to change to accomidate the monster files. As well as hardware help.

 

B ) Mastercam has to provide a solution to retain existing workflow practices...smaller stl's. At least for a few years when hardware can catch back up.

 

I agree Chris, and we are working on a solution.

 

Thanks,

 

Colin

[?Mark]

It's the same thing as old verify, in that respect. The slider is for visual reference only..... As long as you don't export the model anywhere

 

For clarification, Medium is the default position of both X6 & X7, the half-way point on the "speed/Quality" or "precision" slider on their respective platforms.

 

The slider will affect the tolerance of calculated (and therefor, displayed) part, which is what is export, so that's why it has an affect on the exported file.. The STL save tolerance is like every other tolerance, "You have this model (on screen), how close do you want to save your STL to that file?".

 

Edit: Wow, lots of activity while I was typing Please, if you're going to reference a file that's not one of the installed demo files, post it up here or send it to me in an email/PM. Thanks!

 

That does clarify something. I'm consistent and always use max precision and .002 stl tolerance on my parts. 99% surfacing. On average the files are about 3 times bigger. Gets really bad when using stock models. Than the MCX files become monsters.

Since on the subject (sort of), any chance for restmill toolpaths to recognize "mushroom" shaped stl models so that it will stop cutting where there is no more stock? Imagine a large "overhang" stock. After clearing that, restmill will still cut those "overhang" areas while stepping down in z...

 

Thanks!

[Jrygus]

I have been using a process with stock model lately (in X6 MU3) that has been a little more reliable for me. If you can get a stock model to look like you want. I have had a bit of trouble with it leaving out operations. What i have been doing is save that to a polymesh on a different level. Then delete the Stock model operation that created it. Then create a new stock model with the polymesh as my stock and I do not pick an operation from the list. It just creates a stock model that represents the polymesh you created. It works pretty well for rest milling. The stock model does not go dirty all the time when you change previous operations.

[Buddy J]

I just finished re-installing X6 for this very reason

 

I'll leave X7 active also for stuff already done but I have several large 5 axis projects coming up and I need to be able to verify where I'm comfortable.

X6 watertight issues occurred sometimes but the overall quality and comfort is something more important to me right now.

While I do 90% of the programming here, I'm also the prove out guy and I need to know what’s going to happen, for my heart and sphincter's

sake. These fixtures are too $$$ to risk crashing so I'll take peace of mind any time.

Sometimes I seriously wonder why we are constantly updating something that works fine, as is.

The headaches make me cringe every time a new release is announced.......

[CamMan1]

I would like to know how CNC Software makes the decisions they do. Like the way they implemented everything in UVBS (Verify) for X7. Is it from feedback from a handful of beta testers and fanbois or the general user base. I sure had know idea that they were going to do what they did with the verification. If I had known we might not have paid maintenance. But that was probably the plan. Get us to pay our maintenance and they "shovel" us this release. I'm with you Buddy J I have gone back to X6.

[gcode]

The files are huge, but between true x64 support and the new UBVS, I can verify

parts that crashed previous version.

I'm currently using a 140 meg stl file on a Ø56" vane for verify.

X6 can't even launch verify with that file.

As far as stock models go, unless it's a very simple part, I just save an stl file and use it

to define the stock model. Associativity is lost, but the file is rock solid.

[K2csq7]

The stock model does not go dirty all the time when you change previous operations.

But it also will not represent the changes you made...

[megaman]

We are a medium sized shop that is allowing all the mill guys to use mastercam (9). We have both x6 and x7 installed on our computers. So many of the guys are frustrated with x7 verify and its dependability.

 

Is there or can someone at cnc software make a video on how to use this and compare with accuracy. Right now i have been playing with it for months intermitently and still cant get the results like x6 .

[Aaron Eberhard]

That does clarify something. I'm consistent and always use max precision and .002 stl tolerance on my parts. 99% surfacing. On average the files are about 3 times bigger. Gets really bad when using stock models. Than the MCX files become monsters.

Since on the subject (sort of), any chance for restmill toolpaths to recognize "mushroom" shaped stl models so that it will stop cutting where there is no more stock? Imagine a large "overhang" stock. After clearing that, restmill will still cut those "overhang" areas while stepping down in z...

 

Thanks!

 

Mark - That's a good idea and I don't know if that's in the mill teams' wish list... Would you mind creating a sample file with exactly what you want it to do, and get that in through your reseller or tech support so it can be added/reviewed as a feature request? I recommend making a short video describing what you want. If you don't have any software to do it, there's an awesome free program called Jing that can handle it for you, that always makes it much clearer than just a file and some text

 

The stock model meshes are about the same size as old verify's "good" meshes, so that's how much bigger it will make the MCX file if you add them in. It's just a question of what's more convenient, trying to herd 4 50 Mb files or 1 200 Mb files

 

I would like to know how CNC Software makes the decisions they do. Like the way they implemented everything in UVBS (Verify) for X7. Is it from feedback from a handful of beta testers and fanbois or the general user base. I sure had know idea that they were going to do what they did with the verification. If I had known we might not have paid maintenance. But that was probably the plan. Get us to pay our maintenance and they "shovel" us this release. I'm with you Buddy J I have gone back to X6.

 

CamMan1 - That's an excessively negative view you've constructed...

 

The decisions are made based on the all the feedback we get, good and bad, whether it's from reading the forum and our interactions here, the reseller network (who, ostensibly, should be getting feedback from you), open houses & user groups, trade shows, and of course the wonderful help & feedback from our beta users as well. In this particular case, verify has been a sore spot for many years for a large portion of our userbase, and based on the requests we've received (from a variety of sources), this was our go at addressing those needs.

 

Contrary to a vocal few on the forums, the people I've talked to people in person tell me they love the new verify. I know you don't, and I'm sorry about that, but the response in general seems overwhelmingly positive. That tells me we're on the right track, even if it isn't perfect right out of the gate.

 

We are a medium sized shop that is allowing all the mill guys to use mastercam (9). We have both x6 and x7 installed on our computers. So many of the guys are frustrated with x7 verify and its dependability.

 

Is there or can someone at cnc software make a video on how to use this and compare with accuracy. Right now i have been playing with it for months intermitently and still cant get the results like x6 .

 

Megaman - Have you talked to your dealer about X7's dependability? What kinds of issues are you experiencing? What results can't you get like x6? Shoot me a PM with some questions, and I'll see if I can slap together a video of what you need help with when I get back to the office in a week or two..

 

I just finished re-installing X6 for this very reason

 

Just make sure you don't lose the LWN file that's created, and it'll be verifying/using the watertight model for everything important (i.e.: Toolpath display & calculation, not display).. When you lose that LWN named the same thing as the STL is when you have problems with that..

 

If creating STLs is the only thing that keeps you using X6, it may be worth it to explore the stock model options and such, you'll be trading a lot of efficiency gains for minor inconvenience.

[CamMan1]

Aaron,

I am sorry if you believe I am being Excessively Negative but when about 70% of my life is spent in front of this software I believe I have a right to express my concerns about the direction Mastercam is going. When something has changed so drastically from one release to another that it has completely disrupted my workflow it also effects my life. Our company had no forewarning of the impending change (doom) that our maintenance purchase would bestow upon us. I am not saying that everything in X7 is a failure, just the implementation of UVBS.

[mike93]

all that counts is generation time with no crashes...

[Tyler Robertson]

If you're not doing mold work with mastercam the verify being faster and able to handle much bigger files without crashing is a huge improvement to people. If people are happy with something they almost never create an account on the forum and start a thread about it (some people who already have an account do). So mostly here you hear negative feedback, but useful none the less.

 

One thing that I don't understand is why there isn't a user interface for changing <PrecisionFactor>1.0</PrecisionFactor> (from the XML file... mine is now set at 2.5)

 

the slider changes the precision but there is still artifacts that are way too large for almost any cutting work. you can accurate zoom, but without knowing being able to see where the problem is due to the triangulation, what's the point? I would rather run the verify 2x as long, and do other work in the process and only have to check it once, rather than be zooming in and out of regions trying to find my problem. Maybe that's just me??

[K2csq7]

I would rather run the verify 2x as long, and do other work in the process and only have to check it once, rather than be zooming in and out of regions trying to find my problem. Maybe that's just me??

Tyler, I'm sure it's not "just" you.

My style is to verify a part many many many many many many many times during program creation to see how things are working. Not just once at the end to make sure there isn't a crash, but all along the way to see how tools enter/exit the cuts, blending between toolpaths, gouging, unwanted heavy cuts, fixture clearance, the list goes on.... I only NEED to use accurate zoom for the "finishing touches". The new verify is great in my book, I love the speed and lack of crashing when the program starts to get large. Admittedly, there are issues, but none are even remotely close to having me say "I wish verify never changed".

Thanks for taking the jump CNC, it was a much needed improvement.

[CamMan1]

If you're not doing mold work with mastercam the verify being faster and able to handle much bigger files without crashing is a huge improvement to people. If people are happy with something they almost never create an account on the forum and start a thread about it (some people who already have an account do). So mostly here you hear negative feedback, but useful none the less.

 

One thing that I don't understand is why there isn't a user interface for changing <PrecisionFactor>1.0</PrecisionFactor> (from the XML file... mine is now set at 2.5)

 

the slider changes the precision but there is still artifacts that are way too large for almost any cutting work. you can accurate zoom, but without knowing being able to see where the problem is due to the triangulation, what's the point? I would rather run the verify 2x as long, and do other work in the process and only have to check it once, rather than be zooming in and out of regions trying to find my problem. Maybe that's just me??

 

No it's not just you. I also have my Pfactor set at 2.5. That has been my biggest complaint about UVBS from the start is the initial visual quality. Even with the Pfactor at 2.5 I get a lot of visual artifacts that look like they may be a false cut. And even at a Pfactor of 2.5 on the large parts I do they are huge artifacts so I still find myself doing a lot of zooming and unzooming. It seems like the precision is somehow scaled to the size of the part. The other problem with running the Pfactor at 2.5 is the load times for a large part with a lot of toolpath. Sometimes it is unbearable when you are in a hurry.

[Aaron Eberhard]

Aaron,

I am sorry if you believe I am being Excessively Negative but when about 70% of my life is spent in front of this software I believe I have a right to express my concerns about the direction Mastercam is going. When something has changed so drastically from one release to another that it has completely disrupted my workflow it also effects my life. Our company had no forewarning of the impending change (doom) that our maintenance purchase would bestow upon us. I am not saying that everything in X7 is a failure, just the implementation of UVBS.

 

CamMan1 - Of course it's your right to complain, but so far there's been two people who at CNC who have contacted you over the forum to attempt to get in touch with you personally and schedule a meeting to go over your specific complaints and how you'd like to see them addressed; Myself and the project lead on the the new Verify. I understand you're busy, we all are, but without getting specific information and concerns, it's hard for us to address your issues. I tried to schedule a meeting at the beginning of August, when we could still implement changes for MU1, but you never got back to us about it. I'm not sure how to provide better customer service than that ?

[CamMan1]

Well I am sorry Aaron but I have been swamped and I have not had any free time lately. One of our programmers was diagnosed with cancer and I have been pulling double duty while he gets his chemo treatments. Our other part time programmer/owner has been busy with our new building addition. Only reason I have a breather right now is 2 machines are being worked on but I will be swamped again in an hour. I will try and make some time.

[K2csq7]

Camman,

Best wishes to you co-worker.

If you need workarounds for the time being, you know we are here!

[CamMan1]

Yeah I know I'll admit everbody has been a big help on the forum. Back to he grind.