The New Verify

[left coast lefty]

A couple of things. We are always working on speed increases, we are also working on an automated accurate zoom so that as you zoom in, the accurate zoom happens transparently to the user. Third if you have engraving files that are problematic in X7MU1 I would like to see them. Please send them to [email protected]. If you have a decent graphics card and plenty of memory you can try editing you MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml located in your MyMcamX7 directory and change the <PrecisionFactor>1</PrecisionFactor> to a higher value. The change is exponential so don't go above 4 or so. See if that helps.

 

Would it follow that if you have a weak processor and small memory you should reduce the value? Seems obvious but not sure. I am frequently out in the shop on a laptop. Verify is very choppy.

[Product Manager CNC Software]

Machineguy: What are you seeing for results, a lot faster or slower in new verify?

[Product Manager CNC Software]

LeftCoastLefty: Yes that would be our recommendation, keep an eye on the amount of memory being used during a verify and see if it approaches your limit. If it does move the slider to the left.

[Product Manager CNC Software]

Murlin: If we do another release of X7, speed enhancement and fixes to the Simulator will be included for sure.

[Müřlıń®]

Thanks Ken...

[oneyankfan1]

In my shop we use vericut on everything as a rule of thumb, so for me the verify/simulator has always been a "referance only" situation, so from that aspect the speed of the new simulator is incredible, but for those that dont have vericut and the only comparing you do is through Mastercam I can see your issues, the new simulator is lacking terribly in that area not that the old verify was much better, unless you are at Mastercam 0,0. If you programed the part at the aircraft corrdinates it could be thousands of inches away from the Mastercam 0,0 and was just as bad.

[gcode]

unless you are at Mastercam 0,0. If you programed the part at the aircraft corrdinates it could be thousands of inches away from the Mastercam 0,0 and was just as bad.

 

this is not a problem if you have the stock tool plane set properly

[left coast lefty]

LeftCoastLefty: Yes that would be our recommendation, keep an eye on the amount of memory being used during a verify and see if it approaches your limit. If it does move the slider to the left.

 

Thanks Ken.

[oneyankfan1]

this is not a problem if you have the stock tool plane set properly

 

It still leaces alot to be desired compared to vericut, not to mention i have had verify lie to me so many times about gouges and even tool paths when i verify g code through vericut, it has many problems if you dont have vericut which was my point that there is no comparison between verify/simulator and vericut they are like ford and ferarri.

[gcode]

It still leaces alot to be desired compared to vericut, not to mention i have had verify lie to me so many times about gouges and even tool paths when i verify g code through vericut, it has many problems if you dont have vericut which was my point that there is no comparison between verify/simulator and vericut they are like ford and ferarri.

 

see this thread regarding Verify "lying" to you

http://www.emastercam.com/board/index.php?showtopic=75105

 

Vericut is and outstanding product and I have access to it, but Verify is adequate for 95% of what I do

I almost never use Vericut on 2.5 and 3X work or 5X gantry mill work.

[oneyankfan1]

see this thread regarding Verify "lying" to you

http://www.emasterca...showtopic=75105

 

Vericut is and outstanding product and I have access to it, but Verify is adequate for 95% of what I do

I almost never use Vericut on 2.5 and 3X work or 5X gantry mill work.

 

I mean the X6 verify lying to me although i know the x7 simulator issue on this. I can think of one instance when i was doing a simple contour path and i was driving a curve i had created on the edge of a solid and when the cutter reached a section of the line it swung through the drop that i was going around and would have crashed, only verify didnt reveal that to me vericut did, i had to actualy draw thw geometry in that one specific area using lines and arcs to fix the problem out of the 5 here that use mastercam no one had seen that before, there were 3 areas that i did exactly the same way but only one did that, there was nothing wrong with the solid model and all the geometry (the curves and lines and arcs) analysed the same before and after. Yes it may work 95% of the time but I'll let you bet spindles and cutters on it, I however worry about the other 5% too much, and when you program for mag3's and t2's better safe than sorry. It is just my opinion that Mastercam will never be able to replace the accuracy of vericut forgetting crashes, the ability to find gouges is second to none

[Guyinthedesert]

IMO, the old verify was extremely accurate when you changes the tolerance to around .0002. The default is .008, which is fairly crude. Yes, tightening up the tolerance slows it down, A LOT, but the results are pretty good. Even stil, I've had many instances where verify showed a perfect part, and Vericut showed a gouge.

[John Hill @ Poplar Hill Machine]

For me, the *NEW* X7 Verify only useful for collision detection at best. The old X6 Verify was much better resolution and was FASTER for *me*. We do a lot of microwave component machining using micro end mills (.005-.055 dia) in parts usually no bigger thatn 4 x 2 inches. With the precision slider at MAX and the defaults file at 4, it takes over 5 minutes just to get Verify loaded and going (on small simpler parts!)...not to mention the EXTREMELY long time to watch the full simulation. To top it all off, it takes mega time to "Accureate Zoom" on an area only to see that the simulated cuts are no where close to the wireframe outline of the feature. Wish I had stuck with X6.

 

But hey, it's just my opinion.

[CamMan1]

For parts that small you should have your precision factor set at 1 or 1.5 and the precision slider between 5 and max. At that if the resolution if it is still grainy hit accurate zoom an it should be much faster at those settings.

[Slick]

I'd like to second what John said regarding "FASTER" and the hint of regret for leaving X6. (And by the way John thanks for posting!).

 

I'm on the forum researching X7 solutions and issues. I will always be a supporter of MasterCAM and have weathered the storm through every upgrade. The intent of this post isn't to sound negative, I will be following up to see if there's good input to resolve my issue (and I felt compelled to vent). I never realized how much I used Verify to validate tool path choices until programming a large project in X7. I agree that Vericut is a great proofreader, I'm a trial and error guy, I like to generate a tool path, have a look at how it removes material, maybe make a change, try it again, etc.

 

My current project has 67 tool path operations so far. Below is some frustrating time analysis from my computer, I'm either looking for confirmation that this is common, and if there are ways of resolving this without reducing/adjusting/compromising accuracy (the Precision function) and/or reducing graphics quality:

 

From the time the Verify button is pressed: 30 seconds, there's a ribbon message that says Updating Scene In Background, the windows circle spins, once the circle goes away it takes a few clicks of the play button to begin the verification

 

If stop button is selected: 5-10 second delay before the functions of the window will respond, and the majority of the time my stock re-appears hiding the removed stock.

 

Once the play button is selected again: 5-10 second delay before the tool begins to move, and the majority of the time my stock re-appears and flickers in and out for the first few seconds.

 

This time adds up. I'm phishing to find out if this is common with the users and/or if there are settings that I should be reviewing. I've been adjusting the above Precision function, 1 through 4, it doesn't alter the wait time. I understand that this is new, if it's common so be it. But as they say, time is money, I need to resolve whether our team of programmers should stick with X6 until this new interface functions faster.

[John Hill @ Poplar Hill Machine]

CamMan1, 1-1.5 is nowhere near good enough resolution. Bottom line, I really need Verify and now it's pretty much useless to me.

 

Slick, I have all the same issues as you...that’s what lead to my original post.

 

The attached jpg shows toolpath of a .020 dia end mill cutting .100 wide waveguides with .012 radii in the corners. Wireframe of features shown...cuts show gouges, bulges, mismatch. Looks the same with a Defaults setting of 4...just takes exponentially longer to simulate.

 

In my opinion...dump all the eye candy and just make it work!

[mc since v3]

I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed list of the "XML" file settings and what each one does instead of constantly searching the forum for different "setting" tweaks.

[Rstewart]

Have you machined that part already? Guessing it cut like it was supposed to?

 

That sucks but I guess I could be worse, as in not showing gouges and doing it on the machine. I'd go to your reseller on this issue and take it to CNC...

[Thee Rickster ™]

We are on MU2

I would think that X8 will be the savior if they indeed addressed this.

 

Try verifying a complex mold cavity with rest ruf, rest waterlines and pencil paths from

1" Ø ball to 1/32 Ø. I try to time, verify and lunch at the same time.

 

The trick is to program 2 jobs at once so you can keep the ball rolling

while waiting for an accurate verify. (remember to save each file often)

[Roger Peterson]

my biggest issue is with small tools less than 1mm. But for the most part I can verify things that would lock up the X6 verify and leave me spending a lot of time saving stl files or creating stock models where I really didn't want them.

 

I seem to get the best balance between speed and accuracy by not having the performance slider all the way up but instead use the accurate zoom function.

 

For small tools I still use verify to help me visualize what's happening, but to get the accuracy I am looking for I just use a stock model. It can certainly take a while but that's ok as it is crunching in the background. Even the compare function works pretty well, although it does add significant calculation time.

 

Has anyone having issues tried a stock model to get a higher resolution? What did you think of the results? How long did it take to calculate vs. verify?

[CamMan1]

CamMan1, 1-1.5 is nowhere near good enough resolution. Bottom line, I really need Verify and now it's pretty much useless to me.

 

Slick, I have all the same issues as you...that’s what lead to my original post.

 

The attached jpg shows toolpath of a .020 dia end mill cutting .100 wide waveguides with .012 radii in the corners. Wireframe of features shown...cuts show gouges, bulges, mismatch. Looks the same with a Defaults setting of 4...just takes exponentially longer to simulate.

 

In my opinion...dump all the eye candy and just make it work!

 

Trust me I know exactly where you are coming from. When X7 was released I was VERY vocal about the same issues that you are having. I actually stirred up a hornets nest over the issues that you are having. I basically learned to change my verification habits from X6. When I need an accurate model comparison I accurate zoom a small area and then compare that area and move around the part zooming, compare, unzoom, move, zoom, compare etc. I learned to live with the trade off that I now can Verify extremely large and complicated parts that I could not in X6.

[Thee Rickster ™]

I don't have that big of an issue with verify.

I don't get gouges that often, so I basically use verify to point out areas

that need more attention, or that I missed.

[Thee Rickster ™]

For parts that small you should have your precision factor set at 1 or 1.5 and the precision slider between 5 and max. At that if the resolution if it is still grainy hit accurate zoom an it should be much faster at those settings.

 

Only been using X7 since MU2....

 

Ok, where do you set these factors?

[Thee Rickster ™]

this is not a complex part

default settings unchanged accept I movee the speed slider all the way to the right

 

1st pic no accurate zoom

2nd pic with accurate zoom

 

not much difference, can anyone explain accurate zoom to me?

it chopped my block up???

 

 

[CamMan1]

If you are using the default MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml the Precision factor is set at 1 and the Precision slider is set at 5. Leaving the Precision Factor at 1 and moving the Precision Slider (which is at the bottom left of the window) all the way to the right will max a big difference. If that is not clear enough you will need to change your Precision Factor. Go to C:\Users\your name\Documents\my mcamx7. That is where you will find MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml. Copy it and rename it to something else like "Normal Size Parts PF2 PI8.xml" Then find <PrecisionFactor>1</PrecisionFactor> and increase that value. This is what makes the most difference. Then you can change <PrecisionIndex>5</PrecisionIndex>. That will change the default position of the precision slider. So now when you run Verify you can select the new file you created and see if that makes a difference. I have several different defaults for the different types of jobs I am working on.