Manual Entry Simulation

[LVTC_Robert]

Hey,

 

I was curious if anyone knows if we can simulate manual entry on x9?

I like the simulation that comes with the program and when my students write code manually I was wondering if I could use mastercam to verify their work.

 

Thanks

 

Robert

[Guest]

No, Manual entry has no simulation ability

[Colin Gilchrist]

Look into "Cimco Edit V6". For cheap, ($500 per license maybe?), you can backplot and do material removal with G-code.

[LVTC_Robert]

OK thank you, We do have Vericut but time on mastercam I feel will be more useful for my students for the future.

[Colin Gilchrist]

Well, if you've got Vericut, then you've got access to the best simulation software on the planet.

 

There is no reason you shouldn't do these things then:

 

1. Setup Vericut for your own use, so that you can verify your student's programs. (before they crash the machine!)
2. Get training on the "Mastercam to Vericut" interface. (This is purchased from CGTech, may be free for educational) Then setup each student workstation to be able to launch the "Mastercam to Vericut" interface.
3. Teach the students the basics of Verifying and Simulating the G-code programs. (This can be done with only "stock", no Machine Simulation needed.)

[crazy^millman]

 

Well, if you've got Vericut, then you've got access to the best simulation software on the planet.

 

There is no reason you shouldn't do these things then:

 

1. Setup Vericut for your own use, so that you can verify your student's programs. (before they crash the machine!)
2. Get training on the "Mastercam to Vericut" interface. (This is purchased from CGTech, may be free for educational) Then setup each student workstation to be able to launch the "Mastercam to Vericut" interface.
3. Teach the students the basics of Verifying and Simulating the G-code programs. (This can be done with only "stock", no Machine Simulation needed.)

 

 

Colin sorry, but it is not. NCSIMUL is much better and faster at simulation.

[Colin Gilchrist]

Colin sorry, but it is not. NCSIMUL is much better and faster at simulation.

 

We'll have to disagree Ron. I've seen a demo of NCSIMUL, and it is decent software. That said, I really hate the sales tactics that their company uses. In addition, CGTech has some of the best customer service of any company I've ever dealt with.

 

Care to share why you think it is "better"? I'll give you that it has some nice graphics, but I've helped develop some amazingly complex simulations inside Vericut. Is there a limit to how many axes you can drive? How does it handle Robots? What about Carbon Fiber Placement programming?

[crazy^millman]

Nice graphics and speed to do the job along with full machine support and up front error checking with no special button to use. Ability to pick on a surface and see the tool that cut that surface and the exact code line that cut it. Measurements tools that are also interactive as part of the verification and simplified interface to allow ease of use for any level of user.

 

As many Axis as you want to control, probing, tool inspection, tool change, coolant nozzle position if controllable at the machine and yes full robotics with pick and play from the robot back to the machine as well.

 

For fiber placement seeing how 99.9% of the machine shops I work with have no need for it not really sure why it is really all that important, but I will work on getting you an answer.

 

Shoot Derek an email and get his thoughts on the product.

[Colin Gilchrist]

Hi Ron,

 

I've spoken with Derek about NCSIMUL a little bit, and I still don't believe that NCSIMUL is better than Vericut. I'm probably biased, having spent the better part of 8 years learning Vericut in and out.

 

This isn't meant as an attack against you, but do you have some kind of business relationship with them? Because it seems like you tend to promote any product you have personal involvement with, and discount the rest. Just an observation of mine.

 

I'd take Vericut any day over NCSIMUL, for the Customer Service aspect alone. CGTech is one of the best companies I've ever dealt with, bar none. They too have an extensive library, and the product ships with a huge library of built-in machine and control files.

 

Have you dealt with the NCSIMUL Sales Guys? Because I get the distinct impression, when I talk with them, that I'm being sold a used car. That's not the kind of company I want to invest a single minute of my time into doing business with.

 

I think Vericut is the best machine simulation software on the planet. After doing some investigation of NCSIMUL on my own, nothing I've seen has changed my opinion. There are certain aspects of Simulation that NCSIMUL does better than Vericut. That said, I don't think they are better if you consider the entire package, including sales, support, and training.

[crazy^millman]

Hi Ron,

 

I've spoken with Derek about NCSIMUL a little bit, and I still don't believe that NCSIMUL is better than Vericut. I'm probably biased, having spent the better part of 8 years learning Vericut in and out.

 

This isn't meant as an attack against you, but do you have some kind of business relationship with them? Because it seems like you tend to promote any product you have personal involvement with, and discount the rest. Just an observation of mine.

 

I'd take Vericut any day over NCSIMUL, for the Customer Service aspect alone. CGTech is one of the best companies I've ever dealt with, bar none. They too have an extensive library, and the product ships with a huge library of built-in machine and control files.

 

Have you dealt with the NCSIMUL Sales Guys? Because I get the distinct impression, when I talk with them, that I'm being sold a used car. That's not the kind of company I want to invest a single minute of my time into doing business with.

 

I think Vericut is the best machine simulation software on the planet. After doing some investigation of NCSIMUL on my own, nothing I've seen has changed my opinion. There are certain aspects of Simulation that NCSIMUL does better than Vericut. That said, I don't think they are better if you consider the entire package, including sales, support, and training.

Yes we have a relationship with them and I have dealt with their sales people and have had the exact opposite experience. I have not discounted anything and will just let the conversation end there. Have a great day.

[Watcher]

NCSimul has a MUCH better graphics engine and many small things that VERICUT don´t offer.

 

But in the end of the day, VERICUT is superior in the whole, and customer service plays a big part on my statement. We´re driving crazy WFL MillTurns with all sorts of attachments and that spokes volumes to me as I know how powerful and hard to emulate those beasts are.

 

NC-Simul can do fiber placement as well. I just don´t think they´re as good as CGTech on this realm yet. Typically, each company is better at technologies they invented.

 

Spring still much better in their simulation player than CGTech reviewer for example, because they pioneered it. CGTech is stronger in fiber placement.

 

I think the big disadvantage of VERICUT is speed. It does not play well with large parts, even with large cutting tolerances (1.5mm), at least for MillTurns. We found that if we use the regular tolerance (0.5 mm) with our parts and machines, VERICUT becomes unusable.

 

I don´t think I´d suffer from that with NC-Simul. They have a true OpenGL engine whereas VERICUT still relies on Z-Buffer, pixel based graphics.

 

Honestly, I stick with VERICUT in the end because of what it has done so far to us. It´s an amazing product with excellent service. But if it was my own shop, I´d like to know more about NC-Simul.

[Watcher]

BTW:

 

One of the biggest mistakes people using VERICUT make is to wrongly understand cutting tolerances.

 

VERICUT uses the tolerance as a volumetric measurement, and not linear or 3D like the chordal tolerance in a CAM system.

 

So a cutting tolerance of 1.5mm in a cylindrical part 2 meters long still allow us to detect a gouge of 0.005mm in a O.D / I.D or milled feature.

 

Because volumetrically speaking, a gouge of 0.005mm in a 800mm diameter is way bigger than 1.5mm.

[#Rekd™]

How does Icam compare to either of these software's? I have only used Vericut.

[Watcher]

I don´t have the same level of experience in ICAM I have in Vericut... But from what I´ve seen they´re getting better year after year, and they can solve the post-processing problem which neither Vericut nor NC-Simul can.

 

They have now an equivalent to VERICUT Optipath (SmartFeed), and some other optimization technologies like SmartPath the other two don´t offer. Their material removal engine is MachineWork´s, so it is good stuff... Their SmartPack package enables them to be in line with VERICUT and NC-Simul in regards optimization, going even beyond with SmartPath, which does not exist in VERICUT or NC-Simul AFAIK.

 

Also, they can program UHF systems, which VERICUT can only simulate and I bet NC-Simul can only simulate too.

 

But they can´t do fiber placement. But that´s a niche of the niche IMHO.

[Colin Gilchrist]

One more thing that Vericut has is the new "Force" module. This is module is used to calculate cutting forces, optimize the cutting process, and predict tool life. CGTech is developing the software in collaboration with UTC/P&W.

 

It basically embeds the capability of 3rd Wave Systems directly inside Vericut. Which is awesome, because 3WS is a pain to configure.

 

They are the only software vendor who has this capability, because they worked as a partner with UTC to develop it, and they gave the exclusive rights to license the technology to CGTech.

[#Rekd™]

Great info guys!! :unworthy:

[Watcher]

...full machine support and up front error checking with no special button to use. Ability to pick on a surface and see the tool that cut that surface and the exact code line that cut it. Measurements tools that are also interactive as part of the verification and simplified interface to allow ease of use for any level of user.

 

As many Axis as you want to control, probing, tool inspection, tool change, coolant nozzle position if controllable at the machine and yes full robotics with pick and play from the robot back to the machine as well...

 

VERICUT can do all those things as well Ron.

 

One thing I like in NC-Simul that I think the Z-Buffer engine in VERICUT can´t deliver it with the same speed and graphical quality NC-Simul does: Those little arrows and spinning symbols when you are doing measurements or even simulating your code. If you have a milling/turning machine you can show a spinning arrow telling you the direction the spindle is turning... VERICUT has some outdated, ugly indicators for the same purpose. And they don´t show up during measurements.

 

That´s a good indicative for me how outdated the pixel technology in VERICUT is. But when we speak about getting the job done, VERICUT does it very decently as well.

[Mick]

 

NCSimul has a MUCH better graphics engine and many small things that VERICUT don´t offer.

 

But in the end of the day, VERICUT is superior in the whole, and customer service plays a big part on my statement. We´re driving crazy WFL MillTurns with all sorts of attachments and that spokes volumes to me as I know how powerful and hard to emulate those beasts are.

 

NC-Simul can do fiber placement as well. I just don´t think they´re as good as CGTech on this realm yet. Typically, each company is better at technologies they invented.

 

Spring still much better in their simulation player than CGTech reviewer for example, because they pioneered it. CGTech is stronger in fiber placement.

 

I think the big disadvantage of VERICUT is speed. It does not play well with large parts, even with large cutting tolerances (1.5mm), at least for MillTurns. We found that if we use the regular tolerance (0.5 mm) with our parts and machines, VERICUT becomes unusable.

 

I don´t think I´d suffer from that with NC-Simul. They have a true OpenGL engine whereas VERICUT still relies on Z-Buffer, pixel based graphics.

 

Honestly, I stick with VERICUT in the end because of what it has done so far to us. It´s an amazing product with excellent service. But if it was my own shop, I´d like to know more about NC-Simul.

 

Good customer service speaks volumes, and based on that, CGTech scream . Sure, I work closely with them nowadays, but when I was "just" a customer, I used their service and support as a benchmark to rate other CAM companies. The technical support team there are prompt, efficient and courteous. And they listen.

 

I went very quickly from not knowing a whole lot about machine and control building, to creating and configuring an Okuma 5 axis mill, and an Okuma Multus B axis mill turn. And with their help (and to be honest, not a whole lot help was needed), I had these models working great.

 

That is why, when I was given the opportunity, I jumped at the chance of working more closely with them. All software has pros and cons (even Mastercam! ), and it isn't just the software. Service and support is a big chunk of the package, and something not to be dismissed.

[crazy^millman]

NCSIMUL started back in 83 as a post processor company. They got into simulation at the request of customers. They offer a Post Processor Product and support many CAM packages. I didn't say Vericut couldn't do those things I just pointed out what NCSIMUL can do because I was asked. Having had to use Vericut for the last 7 months day in and day out doesn't give me the years of experience others have, but I got enough to make call which one can get the job done better and faster. I like the all windows interface of NCSIMUL and the ability of the interaction of the NC code back to the model real time. I pick on a surface cut on the model and I have the exact line of code that cut it in NCSIMUL I don't get from Vericut. Cross sectioning and model measurements are much easier and faster. The speed where I took 8 hours to do something in Vericut I could do it in one hour in NCSIMUL.

 

Customer support is very important, but if you have a good robust product and not to much support is needed then is that a better or worse product? Having not used a product not sure how someone could make a comment about how bad the product is. I have used Vericut and I have used NCSIMUL and having the latest versions side by side I can tell you they are different products. I can zoom in on my 1 gig NCSIMUL model with clarity and see exactly how it looks. I try the same part that is 2 gigs in Vericut and it has pixels and hard to see anything without having to refresh screen. I have an issue I see it and can click on the model and see the tool and the exact line of code then and there. I don't have to run an autodiff to where the error was and then run a report to then track down the line of code. I can see it immediately and can either fix it right then and there to keep the job running or I can go back into the CAM repost the code and reload the NC program and be right back to where I was without having to load an IP file or rerun previous NC code to get back to the issue. Then I am done and want to run my comparison back to the original model I can. I want to adjust the tolerance I can do it on the fly and it is automatically shown on the screen. No need to redo anything it is done. I want to check anything back to my Verifed model I can do it on the fly from the ribbon bar and check it without having to pick drop downs to decide what I want to check.

 

Getting our information and getting it fast is important in today's manufacturing environments. I can either accept because something is well known is the best makes it the best or I can do some research and make my own decision. I have done just that and didn't want it to turn into a who is best conversation, but I didn't put it out there I was merely giving a different opinion and thought about it. My motives when then called into question as I dismiss others if I have relationship with one yet if someone is making videos and selling them about a product the same litmus test doesn't apply?

 

I have been doing this for a day or two and I got a family to feed. If working with a company is going to help that cause then I am guilty as charged. Not because I am trying to dismiss another company. Vericut is a good product and I told the owner of CG Tech that in person. I would have gotten the job I got done recently had it were not for Vericut. I just feel NCSIMUL is a better product not becuse I have a relationship with them, but because I have seen both side by side and used both side by side. Call it what you will I am good with that, but I gave my honest thoughts.

 

ICAM is a good product and I was a reseller of the product. I dropped the relationship with them a few years ago and have had one with NCSIMUL since then. Read what you will from that.

 

NCSIMUL is not developing their own CAM. They have called their new product that allows a customer the ability to take a program for one machine and move it to other without reposting the NC code by that name, but it is not CAM. Maybe not the best name, but they are not offering a competitive product to Mastercam, NX or others.

[Watcher]

I pick on a surface cut on the model and I have the exact line of code that cut it in NCSIMUL I don't get from Vericut

 

This part I didn´t get yet. To the best of my knowledge, this task is very trivial and quick in X-Caliper, History function.

 

 

Cross sectioning and model measurements are much easier and faster. The speed where I took 8 hours to do something in Vericut I could do it in one hour in NCSIMUL.

 

Even if you haven´t used both I wouldn´t dare to disagree with you on this point.

 

 

I have used Vericut and I have used NCSIMUL and having the latest versions side by side I can tell you they are different products. I can zoom in on my 1 gig NCSIMUL model with clarity and see exactly how it looks. I try the same part that is 2 gigs in Vericut and it has pixels and hard to see anything without having to refresh screen. I have an issue I see it and can click on the model and see the tool and the exact line of code then and there. I don't have to run an autodiff to where the error was and then run a report to then track down the line of code.

 

Agree here too. However, if you have constant gouge check on in VERICUT, you don´t need to run Auto-Diff to spot an error. VERICUT will stop at a gouge whenever it occurs. As a loyal VERICUT customer, I feel uncomfortable with their graphics engine. I don´t see they competing in 5-10 years if they don´t get rid of the old technology that their engine relies on. I like to think they know it and that V8 or a future version will be based on modern graphics technology like OpenGL. People won´t put up with this much longer if you ask me.

 

 

I can see it immediately and can either fix it right then and there to keep the job running or I can go back into the CAM repost the code and reload the NC program and be right back to where I was without having to load an IP file or rerun previous NC code to get back to the issue. Then I am done and want to run my comparison back to the original model I can. I want to adjust the tolerance I can do it on the fly and it is automatically shown on the screen. No need to redo anything it is done. I want to check anything back to my Verifed model I can do it on the fly from the ribbon bar and check it without having to pick drop downs to decide what I want to check.

 

Well, it seems CGTech needs to be pushed to fix this. They have most of the market share and Spring is not making them to sweat if you ask me.

 

As a CGTech customer, I love Spring because they kick xxxx and make VERICUT better. But again, I think CGTech has to make a though decision and abandon their old engine, otherwise I don´t see how they can get there. And I´m not sure if they are really willing to drop support for previous versions, ´cause I don´t see how they can have an engine supporting both technologies.

 

You are right in many aspects, and thank you for enlightening us. It´s always good to hear about how the grass tastes on the other side.

[#Rekd™]

Great to see that there can be a logical discussion on competing software, well done guys!

[crazy^millman]

They have most of the market share and Spring is not making them to sweat if you ask me.

 

I don' think this statement is true from what I have seen, but time will tell.

 

Funny I was being run through the mud not to long ago about how Mastercam is great at this and that and I was asked to open my eyes, yet we have a discussion about Verification Software and no one is applies the same logic to this discussion. Because I feel Mastercam has the best customer service as a CAM company and I can do anything and everything I need it in I think it is the best I am crazy. Yet all other Verification is dismissed because CG Tech has good customer service. A question was asked and a comment was made and it turned into a lengthy conversation. Being in this industry for 30 years I have seen a lot of things. I am still learning and growing in this profession. I have always done some type of consulting and never expected 5th Axis Consulting Group to be what it is today. We have a very respectable group of customers.

 

Relationships and being able to meet our customers needs starts with education. Hopefully I have shared enough to bring ideas and understanding to discussion. I have done my best not to be one sided and present good information. Funny how I am the only one is a true only Mastercam guy in this conversation is the one supporting NCSIMUL, yet those who are using more than one CAM are the ones in most favor of Vericut. They have explored other options in CAM yet there is only one option for Verification today? I did my research and have put apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I started in one direction years ago and it didn't go the way I expected. I moved away from that direction into our current direction. Where this will take our group I don't know. All things considered I will let my normal course of action be in control here and let my work speak for itself. Those who have worked with me side by side know what I am really about. We do our best and go from there.

 

Have a great day everyone. :)

[Watcher]

For every discussion there are many POVs...

 

I think most of us are kind of limited when working in a company that has a defined solution we have to use for day-to-day work. Guys in your position have more flexibility because you often (Not always) work on borrowed dongles so if a partner tomorrow is no longer a partner, you get new dongles from the new partner and are good to go after some training. We, unfortunately, are most of time tied to a global solution or a local 40K investment we cannot drop overnight... So we all end up sticking with what we know and what we can take for granted, just like you approach the MC question.

 

Are there better tools than MC? IMHO yes. Are they a good option for you now? I don´t think so. I think the same is true in regards verification. We all are biased to what is paying the bills.... Aren´t we?

 

I really enjoyed this discussion Ron, and all the inputs on your end... I think that I need an opportunity to use NC-Simul...

 

Tks!

[Watcher]

I don' think this statement is true from what I have seen, but time will tell.

 

What part of it? About the market share or making them to sweat?

 

I think the market share part is undeniable. Perhaps Germany and France, NC-Simul can show more expressive figures. Even in U.S. they don´t take off.

 

The sweat part: I base my statement on the simple fact I´m not seeing CGTech worring about their outdated graphics engine, because all graphical changes in the last VERICUT releases were on the UI. Themes, colors, docking options... all the smoke and mirrors thing... this is how they´re responding to NC-Simul graphics... The engine itself... remains untouched...

[crazy^millman]

What part of it? About the market share or making them to sweat?

 

I think the market share part is undeniable. Perhaps Germany and France, NC-Simul can show more expressive figures. Even in U.S. they don´t take off.

 

The sweat part: I base my statement on the simple fact I´m not seeing CGTech worring about their outdated graphics engine, because all graphical changes in the last VERICUT releases were on the UI. Themes, colors, docking options... all the smoke and mirrors thing... this is how they´re responding to NC-Simul graphics... The engine itself... remains untouched...

 

About Spring.

 

Agree on the other points in both postings. 7.4.2 cleaned up some issues, but no major change to the graphics engine. Nothing I saw at the VUE event makes me think 8.0 will have a new engine either, but could be wrong again time will tell.

 

I didn't answer the question earlier, but yes NCSIMUL can do fiber placement.