Speaking of Solidworks...

[R. Van Winkle]

Is anyone using Mastercam inside Solidworks? What's the cost compared to a stand-alone seat of Mastercam and more importantly, do they play nicely together? Having solids associativity on the toolpaths would be a nice thing to have. 

[Guest]

Cost is something that's not allowed discussion on this forum.....

Yes, they play nicely together....

It can be if you have parts with solid feature tree

[R. Van Winkle]

So even saying something like higher, lower, or about the same price is not allowed...?

[Guest]

Quote

CNC Software discourages any discussion of pricing over the Internet, and we will respect their wishes on this forum.  Around the globe product prices may fluctuate for various reasons including but not limited to economic conditions, varying service structures, international translation costs, and distribution costs.

https://www.emastercam.com/forum-pages/forum-guidelines/

You may want to take a quick glance over the forum guidelines

[R. Van Winkle]

Yes, I'm aware of that but I didn't think asking if it was more or less than a regular seat was an issue because it does not include price. But I guess that's a matter of interpretation so I digress.

Can I buy MiS as a stand-alone or do I need to have a regular seat of Mastercam? And is it just an add-in for Solidworks?

[Guest]

Have you contacted your local Mastercam reseller?

A standalone version of MCAM is available, it also allows you to run a MC4SW's on the same work station.....

There is also a version of MC4SW.....this doesn't allow a standalone license function....

There are also various levels available depending on your machining needs

Edited May 3, 2017 by Guest

[R. Van Winkle]

Good to know. How's the performance of MiS? Would I need special video or processor? We run Solidworks over VMWare (PCoIP) and it really sucks. This setup would prolly make that worse huh?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Is your install on VMware or licensing?

A computer that meets Solidworks specs "should" perform reasonably well....

That of course if part specific......heavy duty parts require heavy duty hardware.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

Just be aware that there are a few functions in stand-alone Mastercam that you can't do in Mastercam For Solidworks.

[R. Van Winkle]

3 hours ago, JParis said:

Is your install on VMware or licensing?

A computer that meets Solidworks specs "should" perform reasonably well....

That of course if part specific......heavy duty parts require heavy duty hardware.

Not sure. We had it on a laptop then moved it to VMWare but I think they changed the licensing to do it.

2 hours ago, Matthew Hajicek™ - Conventus said:

Just be aware that there are a few functions in stand-alone Mastercam that you can't do in Mastercam For Solidworks.

I haven't used Mastercam since the mid X's. Anything that stands out in particular? (Trying to convince the company to move to MC from GibbsCam since we're considering a 5 axis or a mill/turn)

Oh, and yes JParis. I have a quote for stand alone but would rather hear things like this from real users.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

Can't say for sure, but I think it can't use the "legacy" surfacing paths like Flowline.  There may be other things.

[Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc.]

To answer the pricing question (a little), if you buy seat(s) of the standalone MC, you can use the MC license(s) to run MCforSW without having a MCforSW license.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc.

[kunfuzed]

32 minutes ago, Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc. said:

To answer the pricing question (a little), if you buy seat(s) of the standalone MC, you can use the MC license(s) to run MCforSW without having a MCforSW license.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of situations do you picture a company who has both SW and MC already wanting to also have MCFSW?  My understanding is it's more for people comfortable with solidworks as a way to break into CAM.

[R. Van Winkle]

57 minutes ago, Pete Rimkus from CNC Software Inc. said:

To answer the pricing question (a little), if you buy seat(s) of the standalone MC, you can use the MC license(s) to run MCforSW without having a MCforSW license.

That was perfect, and didn't seem so difficult. Thank you. 

21 minutes ago, kunfuzed said:

Just out of curiosity, what sort of situations do you picture a company who has both SW and MC already wanting to also have MCFSW?  My understanding is it's more for people comfortable with solidworks as a way to break into CAM.

For us it will be solids associativity, and the ability to design and program in the same seat. Considering you don't need a separate license if you have MC already, I think it's a great idea, (earlier mentioned limitations considered).

[gcode]

37 minutes ago, kunfuzed said:

Just out of curiosity, what sort of situations do you picture a company who has both SW and MC already wanting to also have MCFSW?  My understanding is it's more for people comfortable with solidworks as a way to break into CAM.

I use MCfSW mostly to build tooling and fixtures.

It is an excellent tool for this because tooling and fixtures are always changing and keeping both the CAD and CAM in SW

is  a great time saver and makes editing the fixture and running "what if" scenarios"  much easier.

I would use it for production  parts more, but I am the only SW user here, and the rest of our staff would struggle with rev changes and edits

if I did production parts in MCfSW

[R. Van Winkle]

7 minutes ago, gcode said:

I use MCfSW mostly to build tooling and fixtures.

It is an excellent tool for this because tooling and fixtures are always changing and keeping both the CAD and CAM in SW

is  a great time saver and makes editing the fixture and running "what if" scenarios"  much easier.

I would use it for production  parts more, but I am the only SW user here, and the rest of our staff would struggle with rev changes and edits

if I did production parts in MCfSW

That's an interesting take, gcode. Makes much sense, too. I've often move my CAD models from the CAM system to Solidworks to test fixturing techniques but it's always a PITA. This would make it a snap.

[gcode]

4 minutes ago, Dirt Nap said:

That's an interesting take, gcode. Makes much sense, too. I've often move my CAD models from the CAM system to Solidworks to test fixturing techniques but it's always a PITA. This would make it a snap.

If you own a current version of Mastercam and Solidworks, you've already got MCfSW

All you have to do is install it.

[R. Van Winkle]

7 minutes ago, gcode said:

If you own a current version of Mastercam and Solidworks, you've already got MCfSW

All you have to do is install it.

We haven't moved from GibbsCam yet. This will be a huge selling point, though. I've looked at HSM for Solidworks (have not tried it) but I would be much happier to have MC in there!

[gcode]

18 minutes ago, Dirt Nap said:

We haven't moved from GibbsCam yet

I'm sorry

[BrianP.]

On 5/4/2017 at 11:35 AM, R. Van Winkle said:

We haven't moved from GibbsCam yet. This will be a huge selling point, though. I've looked at HSM for Solidworks (have not tried it) but I would be much happier to have MC in there!

 

I just went on an interview at a place that is running a Haas horizontal with tombstones and a pallet changer. He is programming with HSM. In his words it "sucks". He is now considering new software. Has to do a ton of editing by hand.

[Mick]

5 hours ago, BrianP. said:

 

I just went on an interview at a place that is running a Haas horizontal with tombstones and a pallet changer. He is programming with HSM. In his words it "sucks". He is now considering new software. Has to do a ton of editing by hand.

 

HSM? As in InventorHSM or HSMWorks? That's strange, one of the local reps told me that software was capable of programming a U3000 twin spindle, twin turret, b axis mill turn. Surely a horizontal  with tombstones would be a walk in the park for such powerful software... *cough*

[R. Van Winkle]

12 hours ago, Mick said:

 

HSM? As in InventorHSM or HSMWorks? That's strange, one of the local reps told me that software was capable of programming a U3000 twin spindle, twin turret, b axis mill turn. Surely a horizontal  with tombstones would be a walk in the park for such powerful software... *cough*

The 2.5 axis version of HSMWorks is "free". I heard the posts are open source and based on java. Haven't tried it though.

[Jayson Kramer]

On 5/6/2017 at 7:25 PM, Mick said:

 

HSM? As in InventorHSM or HSMWorks? That's strange, one of the local reps told me that software was capable of programming a U3000 twin spindle, twin turret, b axis mill turn. Surely a horizontal  with tombstones would be a walk in the park for such powerful software... *cough*

What . they are wishing. The HSM has not grown much sorry. what it does it does well like always. But you need to look at what you need it for and will it do what you need. there is more power in Mastercam for sure.

 

[Jayson Kramer]

On 5/7/2017 at 7:32 AM, R. Van Winkle said:

The 2.5 axis version of HSMWorks is "free". I heard the posts are open source and based on java. Haven't tried it though.

You are correct the 2.5 axis is free only for Mill. Also you are correct on the posts. not a lot of support on the post side as most of the re-sellers are Autodesk cad guys only some were ever Cam people to know what they are talking about. Just my 2 cents as I have sold both.

Now there are some great guys they work on the Cam side out here in Cali for sure.

 

[Mick]

9 hours ago, Jay Kramer @ Precision Programming said:

What . they are wishing. The HSM has not grown much sorry. what it does it does well like always. But you need to look at what you need it for and will it do what you need. there is more power in Mastercam for sure.

 

As it turns out, it is tricks in the post that allowed to achieve something. But twin turret synching? Forget it. HSM hasn't got that power, and that was a CAD jockey talking out his a**.

There sure is more power in <insert your software here> than HSM