Will Mastercam can be used to program this machine

[crazy^millman]

and it doesn't take a very big brain fart to turn a half million dollar jewel into 20k pounds of scrap iron

 

Well when you got managers telling you that you will not be needed in 3 years because 3d Printing will do everything you are doing you have to think outside of the box. Yes one mistakes does do that, but not trying leaves you with that single turret single spindle machine per operator. Going the other way on production parts yields the best man power capabilities when the directive is to slash the workforce.

[Mick]

EuroTech's have the same capability.

 

NCSIMUL can verify these with no issues. Nice to pick on a cut in the graphics and see the line of code and tool cutting right in places verses the Auto-diff process you have to use in Vericut that is not anywhere near the same. People keep throwing out other CAM for these machine, but then fall back to the old hat for Verification in the same sentence.

 

Ron, the OP was asking about CAM, not Verification. You're the one that mentioned Vericut in this thread

 

And by the way, you don't need autodiff to display the line of code for a particular cut.

[David Colin]

Hi all,

thank you for all your replies guys. I spent a few hours looking for information about several CAM systems. (I've programmed for 15 years with Mastercam and i didn't follow closely improvements from others software companies). And well... we just upgraded from X3 to X9 last year (then 2017 soon as i finally convinced my boss to go with maintenance), and now i really wonder if we shouldn't have gone for another fresh CAM package... (especially as I tried 2017 and i didn't really like it but that is another story). To be honest, I guess i thought about it at that moment but i was scared about post processors...

Well, i watched a few videos, read a few articles about all these CAM package you point (I even downloaded a trial version of some). And it looks like some features from others go far beyond Mastercam ones... speaking of mill-turn (multi-turrets-spindles sync/5-axis toolpaths/B-axis turning) and they have machine simulation (however this point is less important to me as we should invest in Vericut pretty soon).
I didn't tried Mcam MT (if CNC had the whole package and it probably hasn't...) but i guess it won't be able to program this exact machine (the one my boss is interested in)  to its full potential.

Another question, all this CAM package GUIs are drastically different than Mastercam and I wonder how much time is needed to learn them?

 

[Watcher]

I didn't tried Mcam MT (if CNC had the whole package and it probably hasn't...) but i guess it won't be able to program this exact machine (the one my boss is interested in) to its full potential.

 

1 - Take a honest look into Mastercam MT. If they can cover that machine, you certainly CAN program it well. If they cannot, then look somewhere else too. It's important to make sure your reseller can support you on MT as well.

 

2 - You're French. That's an advantage IMHO. Do yourselves a favor and take a look into NCSimul package as well. You may like what you are going to see. Being in France you're supposed to get the best support and user base and demos in your very own language. In your shoes I'd take advantage of this moment to evaluate most of my options so in the future I'd not be wondering why I didn't pick that one...

 

3 - Training curve today is not the nightmare it used to be. Video based training, remote support tools like TeamViewer and online courses like Mastercam University make a whole lot of difference.

 

Most systems have similar curves for the basics, and different ones for advanced stuff. But I would not say it takes an extra 6 months to learn something in one system vs another. This is all relative because it depends on the user as well.

[David Colin]

I'm going to ask to our Mastercam reseller about MT hoping they will have this machine.
We had demos from NCsimul/Vericut. Speaking of machine simulation, they have similar features IMHO. Each one has its pros and cons.
NCsimul looked faster/smoother at first glance during the demo but i could compare 'same' project (I gave equal data to each competitor to build it: tool list/NC file/Mastercam part file/machine reference/controller) side by side with NCsimul(reviewer) vs Vericut and it wasn't... I even say that Vericut's material removal engine looked faster.
I also felt that 'black box' inside NCsimul was more complicated. First, because of its machine and control files locked vs opened Vericut's ones. Moreover we asked to each competitor to optimize a NC file (same project told above) with their toolpath optimization tool (OptiPath/OptiTool) as we were interested in. Then, it was very complicated to get a NC file to test with NCSimul (it took several weeks...) while we got CGtech's file in a couple days... Cgtech's NC file broke a high-feed cutter but that is a different story (However I hope 'optimize arcs' with 'break circles' is now a fixed bug).

I also 'heard' (i couldn't verify by myself) that Vericut was more reliable with machine collision checking in certain conditions and solid based engine (Vericut) more accurate than facettized based engine (NCsimul).

[Watcher]

Glad to hear about a comparison between the two... Not much information about this is available, and as a VERICUT user I have a lot of respect for NCSimul and I wish VERICUT could have some of its features...

 

I also 'heard' (i couldn't verify by myself) that Vericut was more reliable with machine collision checking in certain conditions and solid based engine (Vericut) more accurate than facettized based engine (NCsimul).

 

Whoever told you that, was uninformed. VERICUT don´t have a true solids engine, it also uses tesselated data. They have nice converters to transform B-Rep data (STEP, PRT, ASM, etc) into PLY models, which is a different sort of STL format... But it´s all tesselated.... VERICUT graphics engine is so simple in this sense that in the past it used to perform better with cheap graphics cards since they use the Z-Buffer algorithm to represent pixel on the screen. Not sure if this is still a fact.

 

OpenGL in VERICUT is not the same OpenGL we see in some true CAD systems... It´s just an acceleration solution... But it does not improve graphical output... in fact it often makes it poorer for the same speed settings. You have settings in VERICUT to set the quality of the cut stock in OpenGL mode, the better the quality, the worse the speed, as any other system.

 

NCSimul AFAIK uses OpenGL in a more elaborated way since it was written from ground up for Windows O/S with that in mind. But it´s all speculations from my part since I don´t know NCSimul.

 

About NCSimul being worse than VERICUT for collision detection, I highly doubt it. It seems to be just FUD that was spread around. People in the CAV business make a living providing safety. NCSimul is not a low/mid-end CAV solution.

 

Thanks for you feedback!

[#Rekd™]

Another simulation option is Icam.

[crazy^millman]

Glad to hear about a comparison between the two... Not much information about this is available, and as a VERICUT user I have a lot of respect for NCSimul and I wish VERICUT could have some of its features...

 

 

Whoever told you that, was uninformed. VERICUT don´t have a true solids engine, it also uses tesselated data. They have nice converters to transform B-Rep data (STEP, PRT, ASM, etc) into PLY models, which is a different sort of STL format... But it´s all tesselated.... VERICUT graphics engine is so simple in this sense that in the past it used to perform better with cheap graphics cars since they use the Z-Buffer algorithm to represent pixel on the screen. Not sure if this is still a fact.

 

OpenGL in VERICUT is not the same OpenGL we see in some true CAD systems... It´s just an acceleration solution... But it does not improve graphical output... in fact it often makes it poorer for the same speed settings. You have settings in VERICUT to set the quality of the cut stock in OpenGL mode, the better the quality, the worse the speed, as any other system.

 

NCSimul AFAIK uses OpenGL in a more elaborated way since it was written from ground up for Windows O/S with that in mind. But it´s all speculations from my part since I don´t know NCSimul.

 

About NCSimul being worse than VERICUT for collision detection, I highly doubt it. It seems to be just FUD that was spread around. People in the CAV business make a living providing safety. NCSimul is not a low/mid-end CAV solution.

 

Thanks for you feedback!

 

Daniel, for not using it you made the points I was going to make about NCSIMUL.

 

David best of luck in your process moving forward. There are 3 parts to the manufacturing Triangle. The people, the process and the technology. The hard part is getting all 3 in working order.

[David Colin]

Glad to hear about a comparison between the two... Not much information about this is available, and as a VERICUT user I have a lot of respect for NCSimul and I wish VERICUT could have some of its features...

 

I liked the way, NCsimul manages machining in fixtures by making a new fixture model machined (Vericut can only authorize to cut fixture with a given depth)

I also had a demo of Springs' NCSimulCAM and... woow, that was pretty impressive!

[crazy^millman]

 

I also had a demo of Springs' NCSimulCAM and... woow, that was pretty impressive!

 

The tool to allow you to move NC programs from one machine to another without having to go back to the CAM system to do it?

[Watcher]

Another simulation option is Icam.

 

I´d second that strongly!

[David Colin]

The tool to allow you to move NC programs from one machine to another without having to go back to the CAM system to do it?

Yes but it s much more powerful than a simple converter. For example it can move several Top plane OPs from VMC to faces of HMC tombstone. It manages collisions, minimize tool changes... all in a few clicks. It s really impressive.

[David Colin]

Double post sorry

[Zoober]

J...

 

I've never seen or heard about a control that handles anything related to sync without user explicit programming.

 

Have you seen anything like this before? If so, could you please elaborate more? I'm interested to learn about it...

We do this daily on long Swiss parts. It's called superpositioning.

M140/141 on our 3 channel Siemens.

PartMaker handles it easily.

[Mick]

while we got CGtech's file in a couple days...

 

 

Support is a big chunk of the equation, and I can honestly say, that as an end user, and even as a representative, CGTech provides the best tech support I have ever experienced. They have a big number of really experienced individuals in their support department. Of course others will continue to wage their jihad on them, they're a great company to deal with.

 

As for Mastercams MT.. Well, its been a long time coming, and it has a long way to go. For complex multi channel machines, there are far better options out there

[BenK]

This has been a very interesting topic to follow. On the verification side there are several major contenders all with varying strengths and weaknesses, with none being a bad choice. On the CAM side it's a different story. In my opinion we are seeing complacency in action. The programming game is changing and we are seeing those that recognized that start to make an impact. The MT product is well behind several other competitors and it doesn't appear they are in a hurry to catch up. I'm looking into other solutions myself and the two others mentioned here are my leading choices at the moment. With multi channel machines becoming so popular I see it as an opportunity I wish to dig into fully. To do that you can't expect the technology of yesterday to be competitive for the long haul.

[Mick]

This has been a very interesting topic to follow. On the verification side there are several major contenders all with varying strengths and weaknesses, with none being a bad choice. On the CAM side it's a different story. In my opinion we are seeing complacency in action. The programming game is changing and we are seeing those that recognized that start to make an impact. The MT product is well behind several other competitors and it doesn't appear they are in a hurry to catch up. I'm looking into other solutions myself and the two others mentioned here are my leading choices at the moment. With multi channel machines becoming so popular I see it as an opportunity I wish to dig into fully. To do that you can't expect the technology of yesterday to be competitive for the long haul.

Well spoken Ben.

[Newbeeee™]

I'm not sure if the complacency over mill-turn was by design, or the fact that it may have been more of a task than first thought, or the fact that it wasn't given the priority (and resource) that it perhaps deserved.

With interface changes and tool manager changes etc etc there has been a TONNE (that's a metric ton ) of changes in the last couple of releases. Which isn't complacent.

That said, it can obviously be argued on whether or not the priorities are correct.

Personally with the uptake of MTM machines in the last 5 years, I would have resourced that as priority and not a new interface.

But things are done for a reason and we don't necessarily know the answers...

[Watcher]

I think every product, skillset or service a company or someone provides is somehow supposed to cover a niche. Like "This is what we're good at and must get our main focus and resources".

 

It's a perfectly valid business / strategical decision if you ask me.

 

A system choosen today may not be the best tool for our business tomorrow. Simply put different strategies on each end. Because strategies change along the way. The market dictates them. Competition forces us to change.

 

A shop may have to embrace MTM in order to survive tomorrow. But for decades 3/5 axis milling went fine for them. That's life.

 

So IMHO there's a place for each tool for a given slice of the pie. I believe CNC is trying to explore the most some specific slices, not the entire pie. (Not sure if this is even possible).

 

For 14 years I have witnessed MC to loose the opportunities they missed for MTM. It's perhaps way too late for them. And we have to consider that maybe they're fine not being 1st class in MTM but doing other stuff well.

 

Their sales surely not tanked yet, otherwise they would be doing something about it.

 

We should refrain from bashing them for their strategy for MTM. It's a business decision, backed up by numbers.

 

In the long run, they may have to do something serious about MTM, but for now I think they're fine like it is. I thought about how many times I bashed them about it, and part of it was that I was projecting my personal goals on them. That's intellectually unfair to the least.

 

I suppose it would take them at least 10 years to develop and consolidate MTM technology in their products, and to build a name in this field. Those who started in the early 2000's are harvesting results now.

 

There are lots of proprietary technologies in those products and component technology will help, but won't do miracles for CNC if they decide to prioritize MTM one day.

 

In the end it's the old story: those who innovate and go to market first will usually take the lead for a long time.

 

The history proves me right, and I'm glad that it works this way because it fosters the progress of the human kind.

[Watcher]

About the complacency in CAM, it exists and is more tolerated than in CAV.

 

Machine builders are way more innovative and move in a pace that the software industry don't follow yet.

 

There's always a workaround for the lack of something in CAM. In the end you can always code by hand if necessary.

 

The same is not true in CAV. You simulate or you simulate. There's a lot less tolerance from customers in regards CAV functionality, so these companies usually try follow the pace of machine builders and CNC programmers, not CAM systems.

 

In the CAM world most players do stuff just because a direct competitor did it too. It's like that old story "I bought system A because my competitor uses it too."

 

It's amazing how predictable humans are.

[jlw™]

Daniel, have you considered writing a book? I'm thinking memoirs.

[Watcher]

Daniel, have you considered writing a book? I'm thinking memoirs.

Yes... The title would be something like "Daddy knows it all - How I was kicked out of the eMc forum"

[Watcher]

But I'd recommend this one.

 

http://www.cadhistory.net

 

Go to the table of contents.

 

You're going to learn about the roots of this stuff. Read it myself entirely, 3 times.

 

If you know the past it's easier to understand the present.

[Newbeeee™]

But I'd recommend this one.

 

http://www.cadhistory.net

 

Go to the table of contents.

 

You're going to learn about the roots of this stuff. Read it myself entirely, 3 times.

 

If you know the past it's easier to understand the present.

Thanks for the link Daniel. Really interesting, especially the history of Autodesk, the rise of Solidworks, and the demise of Computervision.

It certainly was a small world back in the day.