CAMplete Vs ICAM Vs Vericut

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

For the geeks out there.

 

http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/tessellation.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellation_%28computer_graphics%29

[crazy^millman]

So if I already understood that from my days of making computer games then I am a geek?

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

So if I already understood that from my days of making computer games then I am a geek?

 

YES!

[Greg Williams]

Ron,

 

Great idea scaling, So simple. I will do some tests to see how it works for me

[Mic]

Thanks for the replies. The parts are small and very accurate 4 axis gear like parts about diameter 20mm x 100mm. The machine will be Matsuura LF-160, I am very familar with Vericut and I have a trial license of CAMplete, so I knida only know enough about CAMplete to be dangerous at this point. I know nothing about ICAM.

 

Greg, what made you choose LF-160 over LX-160?

 

Did you do any testing prior of both models to test accuracy difference?

 

Regarding you question, I would prefer a bullet proof post for Mastercam and then Vericut with all its speed and features. I've worked with both Vericut and Camplete. Camplete is a nice "toy" and is very usefull for application Engineering like testing machine setups with different fixtures for new parts. But for material removal simulation it's slow compared to Vericut. And no AutoDiff.

[Greg Williams]

MIc,

 

We went for the LF, as we are after the highest accuracy and surface finish for our specialty parts.

[Guest]

... CAMplete is a nice "toy"...

 

 

How long did you use it?

 

[crazy^millman]

Mic, I am going to Echo FogHorn Leghorn here? I personally used the product in the last 8 months and was very impressed with the speed and capability of the product.

[Mic]

please delete

[Mic]

To be fair it must be said that it was 1.5 years ago I last used Camplete, but at that time Vericut was running in circles around Camplete when it came to tight tolerance material removal simulation.

 

For normal simulation with collision checking the speed was fine.

[Guest]

To be fair it must be said that it was 1.5 years ago I last used Camplete, but at that time Vericut was running in circles around Camplete when it came to tight tolerance material removal simulation.

Of course Vericut runs circles aroud CAMplete in "Material Removal simulation". If it didn't CGTech should pack it in and GTFO. You seriously are basing your "nice toy" comment on ONE feature that truth be told is not CAMplete's core mission? That's almost like me saying Vericut sucks at Post Processing...

 

 

Nice try.

 

[Guest]

You've got mail Greg.

[RaiderX]

Question for those that have experience with Icam and Vericut. What would you chose for a multi machine configuration (3-5 axis mill) high work mix one off part shop? the main goal is verification of nc programs for collisions, interference and net part-model comparison.

 

TIA

Doug

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

Question for those that have experience with Icam and Vericut. What would you chose for a multi machine configuration (3-5 axis mill) high work mix one off part shop? the main goal is verification of nc programs for collisions, interference and net part-model comparison.

 

TIA

Doug

 

 

Either system will do well for you.

CGTech clearly has established itself as the king of the hill for good reason.

 

It's really a 50/50 tossup until you get to collisions and interference and the approach to dealing with those.

ICAM's SmartPath is unique to the industry but it's also an integral part of post-processing and machine simulation/verification as it analyzes the complete kinematics, including fixturing.

http://www.mmsonline...zation-software

It works really well but it's also quite expensive.

 

It's really an issue of customer service and support and what you are comfortable with on those issues.

 

That's as far as I can go , 'on the record'.

[Zoffen]

one thing that gets me about having posting/collision checking/material removal in one program is that there is no double checking like while using independent softwares.

 

The verification program checks that the CAM and post are all doing their job properly. 2 layers of verification.

 

where in a combined post/collisiong/material removal, your banking on the software doing its job with no outside check/verification.

 

I am biased as i use vericut everyday but i do like the ability to build as many machines as i want with no fuss of integrating it with a post or anything like that.

 

I can take what i have and then build upon it with a layer of verification from a foreign source.

 

I'm not discounting the advantages in having it all in one place so the process can be fully controlled( i.e. 5 axis linking etc). This should be the future for cam packages, where setting up the kinematics/paramters of a machine is directly tied into the post and the output. So all this fancy linking stuff can be done inside CAM (so you can visualize whats going on) and not during the posting processing.

 

I like having an outside source verify that my output is correct. May seem dumb to some, but i am pretty dumb so be it!

 

Ideally when you generate a toolpath in CAM it would create the NCI and the posted code for that toolpath in the background. Then when you wanted to "Verify" the program/toolpath it would load a full machine simulation that would then run the posted code from that toolpath, so literally what you see is what you get. I would love vericut to come out with a module that CAM companies could buy and use in their system. Why reinvent the wheel when you got the top of the line already available for integration!

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

one thing that gets me about having posting/collision checking/material removal in one program is that there is no double checking like while using independent softwares.

 

The verification program checks that the CAM and post are all doing their job properly. 2 layers of verification.

 

where in a combined post/collisiong/material removal, your banking on the software doing its job with no outside check/verification.

 

I am biased as i use vericut everyday but i do like the ability to build as many machines as i want with no fuss of integrating it with a post or anything like that.

 

I can take what i have and then build upon it with a layer of verification from a foreign source.

 

I'm not discounting the advantages in having it all in one place so the process can be fully controlled( i.e. 5 axis linking etc). This should be the future for cam packages, where setting up the kinematics/paramters of a machine is directly tied into the post and the output. So all this fancy linking stuff can be done inside CAM (so you can visualize whats going on) and not during the posting processing.

 

I like having an outside source verify that my output is correct. May seem dumb to some, but i am pretty dumb so be it!

 

Ideally when you generate a toolpath in CAM it would create the NCI and the posted code for that toolpath in the background. Then when you wanted to "Verify" the program/toolpath it would load a full machine simulation that would then run the posted code from that toolpath, so literally what you see is what you get. I would love vericut to come out with a module that CAM companies could buy and use in their system. Why reinvent the wheel when you got the top of the line already available for integration!

 

Your concern about having it integrating to the posting is ill-founded.

 

You really need to understand how SmartPath works before you criticize it.

There are actually 3 components all interacting to verify everything via G-Code as you post.

The difference is that SmartPath will correct for collisions and interference during positioning if it's possible kinematically.

Right now, no one in the Mach Sim business does this but ICAM.

 

As good as Vericut is, and it's very good, it can only find a problem after the fact.

Then it's back to the CAM and repeat the process.

Talk about reinventing the wheel.

 

I would expect that Vericut, ModuleWorks and NCSimul will likely come up with their own versions of the same thing.

Not sure about CAMplete but I would say it's a good bet they'll do something similar.

Much in the same way that SURFCAM developed the constant engagement cutting algorithms that they patented and were

licensed by VoluMill and others.

[crazy^millman]

one thing that gets me about having posting/collision checking/material removal in one program is that there is no double checking like while using independent softwares.

 

The verification program checks that the CAM and post are all doing their job properly. 2 layers of verification.

 

where in a combined post/collisiong/material removal, your banking on the software doing its job with no outside check/verification.

 

I am biased as i use vericut everyday but i do like the ability to build as many machines as i want with no fuss of integrating it with a post or anything like that.

 

I can take what i have and then build upon it with a layer of verification from a foreign source.

 

I'm not discounting the advantages in having it all in one place so the process can be fully controlled( i.e. 5 axis linking etc). This should be the future for cam packages, where setting up the kinematics/paramters of a machine is directly tied into the post and the output. So all this fancy linking stuff can be done inside CAM (so you can visualize whats going on) and not during the posting processing.

 

I like having an outside source verify that my output is correct. May seem dumb to some, but i am pretty dumb so be it!

 

Ideally when you generate a toolpath in CAM it would create the NCI and the posted code for that toolpath in the background. Then when you wanted to "Verify" the program/toolpath it would load a full machine simulation that would then run the posted code from that toolpath, so literally what you see is what you get. I would love vericut to come out with a module that CAM companies could buy and use in their system. Why reinvent the wheel when you got the top of the line already available for integration!

 

Yes and that bias and un education about the the real process shows through. Vericut does not make the 1st post they must outsource everything when it comes to post. Where does the prove out fall into the equation of getting things done? Back to the end user not them. They have a great product, but they do not own the whole process. I used to represent ICAM and it is a great product, but I no longer have a stake in the game with regards to that. ICAM has offered the very thing you suggest and are that source for many CAM companies. All comes down to resources and you have developed a good process that is using the resources you have learned, but to think it is the end all and rebuff a very good offering because your a Vericut Diehard limits the full potential. Vericut almost never budges on a sale when it comes to their price. Bring up ICAM and see them budge as much as 50% on their price. They are the biggest and if they can squash others by losing here and there they are okay with that. Problem is they still are not a cradle to grave product. To get that deep you need some real coin, funny though all the companies that people consider majors most times are as lost. Thing is they are bigger and have more money so they must be better. I worked for a $12 Billion company and trust me more money does not make better. It just makes the problem easier to forget about because they just throw money at the problem.

 

Something ICAM and NcSimul do have is the Kinematic process integrated into the posting process. By having those 2 very important things linked so very cool thing happen that make the CAM programmer better at theri job sicne they can focus more on that job verse fixing errors a bad post might be creating or a post that cannot and does not take that very important part of the equation into account.

 

Also helps NcSimul is about 1/3 the price of Vericut and about 1/2 the price of ICAM for the same functionality and abilities when comparing apple to oranges on the Vericut side since they cannot do posting and comparing apples to apples on the ICAM side since both do post processors along with simulation.

[Zoffen]

How complicated of collisions can ICAM automatically avoid?

 

How easy is it to modify your machine and control and post in ICAM? are you locked out of modifications?

 

obviously i'm going to be biased as i used vericut everyday and have never used ICAM or any other product.........

 

ICAM does look like steps toward the future....soon everyone will copy their tech just like all new things....

[crazy^millman]

How complicated of collisions can ICAM automatically avoid?

 

How easy is it to modify your machine and control and post in ICAM? are you locked out of modifications?

 

obviously i'm going to be biased as i used vericut everyday and have never used ICAM or any other product.........

 

ICAM does look like steps toward the future....soon everyone will copy their tech just like all new things....

 

Like anything once you learn how to set things up and use it pretty straight forward. I tell anyone if you have worked with one CAM system you can work with any CAM system. Simulation software is kind of the same way, learn one you can learn just about any, though I will say ICAM is up there in some of the things they do and approach things from. They are like anyone you can have a locked down dedicated solution or you can spend more money and get the developer package and build and make your own machines. NCSimul is about the same way, but they have some really nice features that are impressing me.