Jump to content

Welcome to eMastercam

Register now to participate in the forums, access the download area, buy Mastercam training materials, post processors and more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Use your display name or email address to sign in:

Verify comparison: Mastercam X6 vs Mastercam 2017


Titanium
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps you should send some sample files in both X6 and MC2017 to qc_at_mastercam.com

and explain the issues you are having.

They are always happy to get sample files of real world issues.

For my applications( very large parts) the new verify works well for me

Most of the stuff I do wouldn't even run in X6 verify, no matter how much computer I brought to the fight.

However I can see how MC2017 could be lacking if you need to verify small highly detailed parts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way we have our tolerances set in X6, allows us to see even the smallest detail (even as small as .001"). For the type of work we do, this ability is imperative to our work. For many shops, these tight settings just wouldn't matter, but that's not my concern. My only reason for this post is to reach out to the people that have their settings like we do and to find out if any of them have found a solution to this problem.  If X6 verify can do it, we expect 2017 verify to do it. It's as simple as that.

 

I'll be interested to hear if you have any success. It seams everyone I know has just accepted the render quality of the new verify is not as good as the X6 version. I think the new verify has a lot going for it, I just don't understand why they thought it acceptable to have such poor results for parts that are under 1' cubed, which is likely over 70% of all machined parts made.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to hear if you have any success. It seams everyone I know has just accepted the render quality of the new verify is not as good as the X6 version. I think the new verify has a lot going for it, I just don't understand why they thought it acceptable to have such poor results for parts that are under 1' cubed, which is likely over 70% of all machined parts made.

I stuck this over on the other site - the one with 'no soul'... :laughing:

 

Ref sizes of componentry:-

I remember reading a couple of years ago about the Tesa 343 CMM - maximum working envelope is 16" x 14" x 12".
They built this model after doing extensive market research and stated that 80% of the worlds machined components would fit within that envelope.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The verification software is an add-in that CNC licenses from a third party, just like they license many of the toolpath algorithms, the parasolid modeler, and the ribbon bar interface.  People were complaining that the one they were using couldn't handle big parts with lots of fixtures, so they switched to a different one.  The different one solves that problem but with the trade-off of not having as fine grained detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should send some sample files in both X6 and MC2017 to qc_at_mastercam.com

and explain the issues you are having.

They are always happy to get sample files of real world issues.

For my applications( very large parts) the new verify works well for me

Most of the stuff I do wouldn't even run in X6 verify, no matter how much computer I brought to the fight.

However I can see how MC2017 could be lacking if you need to verify small highly detailed parts

We will try qc_at _mastercam.com as well. Thanks for the suggestion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to hear if you have any success. It seams everyone I know has just accepted the render quality of the new verify is not as good as the X6 version. I think the new verify has a lot going for it, I just don't understand why they thought it acceptable to have such poor results for parts that are under 1' cubed, which is likely over 70% of all machined parts made.

Hopefully we can have success with verify yet, and if we do, I'll be sure to share it on here. We don't want to accept the render quality or speed on these types of parts, especially since we are paying maintenance on many seats. I have a friend that is looking at CAM software for his shop and he asked my opinion on Mastercam. Since they do smaller parts as well, I suggested to him to hold off for awhile until the verify problem has been solved. I have no idea why they thought that those results were or would be acceptable. It would be nice to hear from them though, to assure people like myself, that they are looking into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The verification software is an add-in that CNC licenses from a third party, just like they license many of the toolpath algorithms, the parasolid modeler, and the ribbon bar interface.  People were complaining that the one they were using couldn't handle big parts with lots of fixtures, so they switched to a different one.  The different one solves that problem but with the trade-off of not having as fine grained detail.

 

Of course you can't serve everyone, but Mastercam is hardly a specialized niche cam software like WorkNC or Tebis. It is a generic cam system and it's not unreasonable to think that their verify system should be suitable 80% of the worlds machined components. Especially, when the previous version was!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can't serve everyone, but Mastercam is hardly a specialized niche cam software like WorkNC or Tebis. It is a generic cam system and it's not unreasonable to think that their verify system should be suitable 80% of the worlds machined components. Especially, when the previous version was!

I was thinking some more about how X6 verify works better on small parts and 2017 verify seems to shine on very large parts. If verify can only do well in one area, small parts or large parts, why couldn't CNC software implement a mode button for verify that allowed you to choose a mode based on what you are machining? If you want to verify small parts you put verify into that mode. If you want to verify large parts, then you could choose the verify mode for that. Maybe they could get it so that it works for everyone instead of a specific group of people. Would this be doable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking some more about how X6 verify works better on small parts and 2017 verify seems to shine on very large parts. If verify can only do well in one area, small parts or large parts, why couldn't CNC software implement a mode button for verify that allowed you to choose a mode based on what you are machining? If you want to verify small parts you put verify into that mode. If you want to verify large parts, then you could choose the verify mode for that. Maybe they could get it so that it works for everyone instead of a specific group of people. Would this be doable?

 

You're really asking that question on the wrong forum  that's a question for CNC directly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong Forum? I think not. This was a question I wanted other users to ponder so that they could also ask Cnc Software to change verify for the better.

I think Jparis was probably just letting you know that you are more likely to get a response from the CNC software team on the other forums, I don't see many responses from CNC software employees anymore on these forums for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking some more about how X6 verify works better on small parts and 2017 verify seems to shine on very large parts. If verify can only do well in one area, small parts or large parts, why couldn't CNC software implement a mode button for verify that allowed you to choose a mode based on what you are machining? If you want to verify small parts you put verify into that mode. If you want to verify large parts, then you could choose the verify mode for that. Maybe they could get it so that it works for everyone instead of a specific group of people. Would this be doable?

 

That would require CNC to license both verification packages from third parties, upping the cost for them, with would then up the cost for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would require CNC to license both verification packages from third parties, upping the cost for them, with would then up the cost for us.

I was more thinking along the line of the current third party verification developer, developing it so that it does both well but with a mode button. I wasn't even thinking of them purchasing it from two different parties. Surely something can be done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try opening this file

"C:\Users\Tomm\Documents\my MCamforSW2017\MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml"

 

find

 

<PrecisionFactor>1</PrecisionFactor>

 

and change the 1 to 2 or 3 ...

 

the old posts say not to change it to more than 4

 

this will affect performance ... but will also tighten up the graphics if your machine has the horsepower

 

see this thread for details

 

http://www.emastercam.com/board/topic/75775-the-new-verify/?hl=precisionfactor#entry894534

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Try opening this file

"C:\Users\Tomm\Documents\my MCamforSW2017\MastercamSimulatorDefaults.xml"

 

find

 

<PrecisionFactor>1</PrecisionFactor>

 

and change the 1 to 2 or 3 ...

 

the old posts say not to change it to more than 4

 

this will affect performance ... but will also tighten up the graphics if your machine has the horsepower

 

see this thread for details

 

http://www.emastercam.com/board/topic/75775-the-new-verify/?hl=precisionfactor#entry894534

 

Thanks gcode. I tried out what you suggested and changed the precision factor to 2.

It had a huge effect on speed and it took 1 hour, 11 minutes and 15 seconds to verify and 3 minutes 6 seconds, to compare for a total of 1 hour 14 minutes and 21 seconds.

With the precision factor set to 1 2017 took 6 minutes 32 seconds to verify and 42 seconds to compare for a total of 7 minutes and 14 seconds.

The same part in X6 takes 2 minutes, 6 seconds to verify and 2 seconds to compare for a total of 2 minutes 8 seconds.

I am hearing that small parts are what make 2017 slow but this part is not that small. It is 6.925 X 4.000 X 4.125.

At this point the accuracy seems to be decent with the curve tolerance, stl tolerance and workpiece tolerances set to .0005.

With these settings the accuracy seems to be comparable to what we had with X6.

A major problem with 2017 is the speed. On the majority of our parts leaving the precision factor at 1, Mastercam 2017 is taking 3 to 20 times as long to verify compared to X6.

If there are any ideas on how to speed it up, it would be appreciated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What geometry do you have visible in the Mastercam Graphics window? Try turning off the levels that have your solid models before you launch Verify. See if that makes any difference. It may not, but I remember Gcode mentioning something about that affecting performance...

Thanks for the suggestion. We tried it and it took 6 seconds longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestion. We tried it and it took 6 seconds longer.

 

Jiminy Christmas...

 

I have heard of issues with large solids causing a slowdown in loading time. I never would have thought the opposite was true on smaller files. Sorry for the issues you are experiencing. I'm sure CNC Software will figure it out eventually, but it always is a drag when you're the one bringing up an issue that really effects you, and others aren't having the same problem. I know CNC has been overhauling their bug tracking, and development cycles in the last 5 years, and in general they have become much better about fixing and responding to bug issues like this. I think your suggestion about having a switch for the general size of parts is a good one, and hopefully something they can implement quickly.

 

What options are enabled for the following:

 

Tool

Workpiece

Stock

Initial Stock

Fixtures

Wireframe

Gnomon

Axes

 

Try using just the Tool, Stock, and Fixtures options. Deselect all the others. (You may have already done that, but thought I'd check.)

 

Do you have any Stop Conditions enabled? Same question for Collision Checking and Material Cutting. 

 

In your Backplot/Verify options, what tolerances are you using for Curve, STL, and Workpiece? Are you pulling Fixtures from a Level? And what is your Stock source?

 

You may have already gone through all those options and played with them to test the results. If that is true, feel free to ignore my questions, but I can't help thinking that some option is just being overlooked that might fix your issues. Maybe not, and if that's the case, CNC is really the only one that can diagose and fix the issue for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also tried setting the PrecisonFactor to a decimal number. You turned it down to '1'. Try .75, or .5. It might not make a difference, but maybe it could help. I'm just trying everything I can think of...

Thanks for trying to find solutions to this problem Colin. It is appreciated. Most of those things we have already tried.

 

On the part I am working on now, (see attached file at the bottom-part to try) X6 verify takes 13 seconds (12 seconds to play and 1 second to compare).

In 2017 with the precision factor set to 1, verify takes 6 minutes 42 seconds (4 minutes 45 seconds to play and 1 minute 57 seconds to compare).

 

The only Visibility options enabled are Tool and Stock.

The only Stop condition enabled is collision.

Collision checking is set for shank, shoulder, and cutting length.

Curve tol = .0005

STL tol = .0005

Workpiece tol = .0005

There are no fixtures in the program.

Stock source is Solid.

Adaptive quality is disabled. If I leave it on the verify screen gets stuck often as it tries to enhance the model and view.

 

I have tried bumping the curve tolerance up to .008 and it doesn't seem to make much difference (about 8 seconds).

 

Collision checking is something that I do use and X6 is doing, so turning it off to speed up

the software is not really an option.

 

I had not tried a precision factor below 1.

When I try a precision factor of .5 it has a significant effect on speed.

The 2017 verify and compare total time drops from 6 minutes 42 seconds down to 1 minute 37 seconds.

This is still over 7 times longer than X6 at 13 seconds but is much better.

 

I tried another of our parts with a precision factor of 0.5. The compare result was very poor on the curved surfaces.

On surfaces that were finished correctly it was showing gouges all over the part as you can see.

(Part with curved surfaces)

post-72539-0-27296200-1479412085_thumb.jpg

 

(Part to try)

 

 

In summary it looks like we have to use a precision factor of 1 because .5 has too much trouble with curved surfaces. Maybe you could try this file on your system, comparing X6 to 2017 and see what your results are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Join us!

eMastercam - your online source for all things Mastercam.

Together, we are the strongest Mastercam community on the web with over 56,000 members, and our online store offers a wide selection of training materials for all applications and skill levels.

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...