Can we discuss the new verify?

[Guest]

I have to say I like it, there are something I would like to see streamlined but my overall impression at this time is good.

 

Going back to the old verify, as some may or may not remember, I went on an epic rant once doing a high end part that the old verify couldn't even load or get through it if did.....

 

Right now I am working 5 axis complicated optical housings and I have zero issue getting things through verify.

Combined with Stock models, the new verify works well for me.

 

Things I would like to see improved in the new verify

 

1) The loading of the nci info as Mastercam passes that info to the Verify Module, this could be sped up....

 

2) I'd like to see multiple components for workholding/Fixtures be made to be brought in a separate items instead of having to add them together into a single solid via boolean add. I see the radio box option but there seems to be no way to bring in your workholding

 

3) ....

 

 

As far as the new back plot goes, I'd rather use the old style, I am hoping they don't phase it out

[Tinyfxds]

I prefer the old back plot a lot more than the new one.  It just has a better flow to and convenience to it.  The new verify is great.  I used the old one for about a month and then we got X7 and I loved the new one.  With the addition of some new features in X8 it is another step better.  The loading can be slow once in awhile so that needs improvement but I love the slice views you can do. 

[Rocketmachinist]

^ I'm with you. I reverted my backplot back to the old style. Its just kinda nice to have the toolpath show on the geometry that you have drawn and not have to swap to another screen.

[Newbeeee™]

Yup - old backplot rules.

Instant and has a sweet 'feel' to it.

[gcode]

The new verify has a lot of nice features..

I would use it more if it were instant.

I would use it even more it they gave us an icon to switch between old and new on the toolbar

instead of having to use the Utilities app

[Newbeeee™]

Regarding verify - for me, all I want to see is something like the attached.

I don't need all the info on the right hand side and there's a ton of wasted space in the below 'strip'.

The important things (to me) are as I've layed out - if the right hand bar was a radio button that I could click to 'appear' then I'd have the best of both worlds.

Graphics area is king and all the 'stuff' on the bottom and the right hand side takes up a lot of space.

[Jayson Kramer]

I am a big fan of the new Verify for sure. the loading speed is not to bad until you get to larger files and some time when using stock model that has a lot of details. But I for sure see this as a great move forward.

 

John I am figuring you are doing this so it will check against fixture model correct on your thought #2? in that case yes I fully agree. I know that I can see multi fixtures in there, it just does net check against them.

 

Backplot I have to agree is a hard one as if you want to see the part to backplot against you have to make sure they are on. it does not flow as easy as the old one.

So I find myself staying with the old. but there are difference like when drilling and using incremental not showing right but if I go to the new one showing correct.
Also it going to another screen is another thing to get used to. not sure why I would find that an issue as it does not bother me for verify.

 

Well there you have my $.002

[K2csq7]

You know you've been a machinist too long when.....

 

my $.002

[Tinyfxds]

Regarding verify - for me, all I want to see is something like the attached.

I don't need all the info on the right hand side and there's a ton of wasted space in the below 'strip'.

The important things (to me) are as I've layed out - if the right hand bar was a radio button that I could click to 'appear' then I'd have the best of both worlds.

Graphics area is king and all the 'stuff' on the bottom and the right hand side takes up a lot of space.

 

Not sure if you are aware, but if you have dual monitors you can drag the right hand info bar onto the next screen. 

[Jayson Kramer]

Tinyfxds- For the right bar most of the time I use the Autohide for it.

[Jayson Kramer]

You know you've been a machinist too long when.....

Yep you can tell..

[Newbeeee™]

Not sure if you are aware, but if you have dual monitors you can drag the right hand info bar onto the next screen. 

Yup but in the broom cupboard of an office of mine, we really cannot run dual monitors because of space.

And in anycase, on the laptop a big screen as I showed would be better IMO.

I'll raise Jay as this is my whole $1 worth

[Tyler Robotson]

imo, new backplot is one of those things that should have been stopped in the design by the User Experience team from day 1 - although I think from a software design point, that getting to verify you kind of end up building backplot first so.. anyway. I can't imagine many people who would ever want the disconnect of having another screen open, and having a second monitor doesn't make it any better - it draws your eye away and takes you out of what you're doing. As a social experiment I have taken people not used to mastercam who had never seen 'old backplot', and let them use the 'new backplot'.  Then, at lunch time I would switch back to 'old backplot' and they would think its an update.

With the graphics improvements I could see a great integrated backplot on the horizon - especially for 5-axis. Love me them vector lines

[Jayson Kramer]

Tyler,

You are aware that the old backplot and new verify do not show the same info exactly all the time just like the old Verify with the old backplot. but the new backplot and the new backplot use the same info and are integrated together to fix old issue this why it is there. I would not see it go away but I am sure there will be improvements for sure.

[BenK]

I agree that the new backplot  isn't that useful. I tried it for a few weeks but ended up going back. The new verify is a step in the right direction but still leaves something to be desired in my honest opinion. Having it separate from mastercam is nice but with the graphics quality it loses all the ground it gained and then some. I think this is another update that was released too soon. Hopefully it doesn't just get brushed aside before they get the bugs worked out.   

[Joe788]

I prefer the old backplot like everybody else.  I like the direction of the new verify, but something needs to be done about the graphics, and especially the lack of collision detection with the fixtures.

 

Can you envision Sony sitting at the boardroom table, pitching their next gen system: "Well, for the PS4, we're going bring back the 240p graphics from the PS1, even though the PS3 had 720p....BUT! the user has the option for 1080p when he pauses the game and hits 'accurate zoom.' "

[Tyler Robotson]

Tyler,

You are aware that the old backplot and new verify do not show the same info exactly all the time just like the old Verify with the old backplot. but the new backplot and the new backplot use the same info and are integrated together to fix old issue this why it is there. I would not see it go away but I am sure there will be improvements for sure.

I am aware yes, but if I'm someone say using a 5-axis router/laser etc. it just seems like something going backwards

[M. Anderson]

My thoughts...

 

When you are working on making an "improvement"  to something, anything, you need to make sure it is just that.

A improvement.

 

Yes, the old backplot and verify needed a "LOT" of help - for one, people working with large files had major problems.

 

Is this "NEW" verify and backplot the solution?

 

For some, MAYBE - NOT for me it is not. This reminds me of cartoons.

 

It is a major update / upgrade, it is also most likely a purchased product from outside CNC.

If so, it is either a poor implementation of outside code or a poor product choice.

 

Is it TOTALLY bad, NO, is it better than what we had???

For some, yes!

For what my work involves, NO!

I think that's why "OLD" and "NEW" are both available.

Your CHOICE...

 

My - $.0002 (I'm cheaper than Jay!)

[Newbeeee™]

Tyler,

You are aware that the old backplot and new verify do not show the same info exactly all the time just like the old Verify with the old backplot. but the new backplot and the new backplot use the same info and are integrated together to fix old issue this why it is there. I would not see it go away but I am sure there will be improvements for sure.

But old backplot could be *fixed* to be the same...

Please?

Pretty please?

Pretty please with sugar on (and I can't ask more nicely than that)?

[gms1]

I don't really have nice things to say about the new verify so I won't go there. I, like everyone else, prefer the old backplot as well.

[djstedman]

I kind of wish no one had asked, but they did so here is my opinion, this isn't meant to trash Mastercam or CNC Software its just my opinion based on the last couple years of using it since X7 came out and now since X8 has been out.

 

I think the features in the new verify are a great improvement over the features in the old verify, however there is simply no doubt in my mind that the new verify has caused the times to program and verify parts inside of Mastercam to go up. 

 

I realize that for people with large complex parts the old verify would simply give up the ghost and in those cases it was useless. That said the new verify must be orders of magnitude better for anyone who was in that situation. For programmers such as myself, that wasn't much of a problem, I can only remember happening on one part (and yes it totally sucked and pissed me off). For all other times however the old verify gave me the ability to verify parts quickly and accurately, which is exactly what I needed verify to do.

 

Using a car analogy here, my thoughts are that if the people at CNC Software had really wanted to make the new verify shine, they should have spent more time on the drivetrain of the thing, and less time on the bells and whistles.

 

So far as I recall I never saw any posts begging for most of the new features in the new verify, and though most of them are indeed nice and are handy, if we are to be brutally honest the real functionality of verify in many cases is slower and with less detail than the old one.

 

Yes we can accurate zoom, yes it is functional enough to work, but seriously its like looking at minecraft on the new verify and call of duty on the old one.. on top of this if you turn the graphics up to get a better result (and I have a very high end computer and video card with 32GB of RAM and 4GB of video RAM)  then the computer stalls ..

 

So I guess my opinion on the new verify all in all is.. barely acceptable, Mastercam should focus more on the reasons people use verify, simply put not everyone has vericut, most shops feel they should be able to rely on verify within Mastercam and you can add all the bells and whistles you want so it looks great at a trade show but when it takes programmers more time to program jobs in the real world they will continue to get complaints as simply put more time to program jobs means less profit.

[Tyler Robotson]

 

Yes we can accurate zoom, yes it is functional enough to work, but seriously its like looking at minecraft on the new verify and call of duty on the old one.. on top of this if you turn the graphics up to get a better result (and I have a very high end computer and video card with 32GB of RAM and 4GB of video RAM)  then the computer stalls ..

What gets me is (and I haven't checked the latest X8 SP or anything) that the tolerances you can set in  MasterCamSimulatorDefaults.xml aren't tied in to any controls in the simulator itself.  If you manipulate those settings you can get the new verify running with very good quality without needing accurate zoom, but a regular user wouldn't know to go looking for that file.   If you turn them up too far you can stall / crash the verify,  but if you turn your tolerance in a toolpath to 0.00000001" you can do that too so..  I would just rather have the access.

 

 

[djstedman]

If anyone has settings for that file that seem to work as good as the original verify I would sure love to see them, I messed with that file a lot in X7 to try and get verify as best as I could but I haven't played with it in 8 yet.. would be curious to know what people have come up with for the optimum balance of performance/accuracy..

 

And as a side note I will say that they must have tweaked those setting a lot already before X8 came out or else done something else, or both .. since I have had much better performance with verify in X8 than in X7

[Guest]

This is just a guess on my part but I suspect most people that feel the new verify isn't a step forward, likely aren't doing any heavy duty 3D  milling with small ball mills, .020", .015" and such

 

In the old verify, you could just about forget it if you had a ton of 3D surfacing, especially will small ball mills......

[gcode]

I build a family of vanes ranging in size from 30 to 60" in diameter.

With the old verify I used to just use a 45degrees pie slice for verify.

Even doing that was not enough. Once I got into finish ops I was running blind as the system simply

could not function.

With the new Verify I can run all the way to finish will a full model.

I can also generate STL files to use as stock in Advanced 5X toolpaths.

This translates to better programs, in less time.