NC verification...

[RDub]

In talks with NCSimul, Vericut, Predator and Camplete for NC Verification.  Just about ready to make a decision and pull the trigger but I just got off the phone with my Mastercam dealer and was told that Machine Sim CAN do G-code/NC file verification.  Cost is much lower than any of the 3rd party softwares.  Does anyone use this or have experience with it? Can anyone share how it compares to any of the 3rd party softwares mentioned.

Is it reliable? Will I miss something if I go that route?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[crazy^millman]

It gets the job done, but it is not 100% verification.

[Guest]

What kind of machines are you looking for verification?

[huskermcdoogle]

It's not G-Code/NC-file per say.  It's posted g-code verification.  There would be no ability to do hand edits and verify those.  It ends up being reliable enough for many situations, but if you feel you need a fully reliable system that you can verify offsets, hand edits, macro's, so on.  Then you will need one of the ones you quoted.

[Colin Gilchrist]

What Ron and Husker said...

The nice thing about both Vericut and NCSimul, they are independent simulation environments, where you can simulate G-code. This means you can simulate exactly what is being run on the machine, but it comes with a catch. Your simulation files must be "fully configured" to catch the errors you want to catch. Normally, this is "collisions" caused by improper programming (you, hit something!), but it can also catch more obscure errors, like "endpoint errors" on arcs, and "axis reversals", but again, this machine behavior needs to be "qualified" in the simulation, so that your simulation is accurate. Many times a G-code Simulator is deemed to be "good enough", and it will be 100% accurate, but only until you run into a situation that "wasn't anticipated" originally, and now there is a "crash", or some other undesirable behavior, where you now have to figure out the root cause, and make edits to the Simulation files, so that future errors of this type can be detected, and avoided.

Now, as Husker mentioned, the "Machine Simulation tied to a Mastercam Post", will simulate "Posted NC Code". For many users, this is "good enough", and will catch 95% of the mistakes they are likely to make. I really like this option, and have used it with may customers. It is especially useful (I think) for Horizontal work, especially if you don't have 5X machines. Why spend 10X the money, when the "Mcam Post Machine Sim", will do what you need, in a familiar environment, at a fraction of the cost?

That said, if you have 5X equipment, or want to be able to improve "existing programs", Vericut is an awesome tool to have at your disposal. I use it daily, and would hate to try and do much of the work I'm tasked with, without it. But it is relatively expensive, as software goes. NCSimul is less expensive, but not as well supported (here in the US). So sometimes, you really do get what you pay for.

 

[Watcher]

What your dealer is offering you is a enhancement on a Mastercam PP that will post your code to an intermediate, proprietary language that ModuleWorks machine simulation can parse and get you closer. Basically your post will continue to generate the output you know but will also generate this sort of proprietary NCI to drive Mach sim.
This is not verification. Any issue with your post will be masked using this solution.

There's no free lunch. That's why it's way cheaper. 

[huskermcdoogle]

7 minutes ago, Watcher said:

This is not verification.

Well, to an extent, I disagree.  It is effective verification of machine, tool and stock clearances.  It is not verification of G-Code.  But in theory if setup right it is a move for move verification of the movement you should (not will) see at the machine.

[Watcher]

Well, 

I might be wrong about it but my understanding of verification is that it is something that can be independently verified, double checked. 

If you are running the code generated by the same engine that creates your g-code, I'd call it plain and simple simulation. 

For the same reason, many companies don't accept inspections made in cnc machines using probes, no matter how modern your equipment is. An accuracy issue on the machine itself and all measurements would be unreliable. 

Hope that it makes sense, 

[Watcher]

By the way, 

This term never gained its due importance in our industry, but verification is an independent animal. 

Software like Vericut, NCSimul, etc are actually CAV systems - Computer Aided Verification

Due to the commoditization of embedded simulation in CAM, it became the norm to take for granted that these independent platforms are simulation software.

The correct classification is CAV. Back in the 80's and early 90's CAM systems could barely plot wireframe.

ModuleWorks and CAMAIX are an example of companies that were created to address the limitations of Mastercam in the realm of machine simulation by the end of the 90's.

Everything related to embedded simulation now is so commoditized that we take for granted everything falls on the same basket. It doesn't. 

[huskermcdoogle]

41 minutes ago, Watcher said:

If you are running the code generated by the same engine that creates your g-code, I'd call it plain and simple simulation.

I will agree to an extent here, but the reality is, if you define it this way is no software out there is verification, the all become simulation.  As the software is still emulating the real thing, it is only as good as it was designed to be, and it is not the same software as is on the machine.  

[Watcher]

Well, if you want to be really accurate, I'd say then that CAV is emulation, not simulation. 

CAV systems are the true form of reverse post-processors. Through tweaking, they can reliably emulate a myriad of characteristics and behaviors of a real machine and control, from its kinematics to some aspects of its dynamics. Embedded simulation cannot do that to a great extent. 

Not sure if you are familiar with musical instruments, but a Fender Cyber Twin amp or a Pod Line 6 can emulate vintage amps perfectly. It's undistinguishable to most human ears. 

There's a substantial difference between simulation and emulation IMHO. 

Last but not least, I use a distinctive approach to the word verification because this is actually a philosophy, like the probing example I mentioned. It's not limited to the CAM world. 

But I think at some extent we're discussing semantics. 

[Metallic]

I went with vericut when i got into 5 axis because to me it was totally necessary to protect my investment and not have a crash. An expensive piece of software like vericut is alot cheaper than having to replace a $40,000 trunnion because your program did some funky stuff.

[huskermcdoogle]

5 minutes ago, Watcher said:

But I think at some extent we're discussing semantics. 

Agreed, not worth hijacking the thread.  Hopefully it sparked some thought though for the op.

[RDub]

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:50 PM, JParis said:

What kind of machines are you looking for verification?

John,

Currently Haas UMC750, Thermwood C67.  Very soon we will be adding a multitasking lathe including live tooling, dual spindles and Y axis and what we add after that is unknown at this point.

[RDub]

Thank everyone for the input. I am very familiar with the difference between G-code and NCI simulation. I completely understand the benefits of having a separate system to verify and we could go even further to say, that it is silly to trust a reverse post processor to emulate a post processor because we double the possibility for error, especially if what is set up on the machine is not how the machine is setup in the software!  Ultimately, although I have seen machine sim included with mastercam for some time now, it has always been for NCI verification.  I was not aware that it was even capable of NC code verification until recently.  

We are not against spending the money for the right tool, but I am just trying to understand how what the Dealer is offering is different than these other options. Does anyone actually have experience on the Machine Sim version that does not verify NCI code and has paid for the ability to verify/emulate NC code?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, RDub said:

John,

Currently Haas UMC750, Thermwood C67.  Very soon we will be adding a multitasking lathe including live tooling, dual spindles and Y axis and what we add after that is unknown at this point.

If you're looking to included the Mill/Turn into the verification package you can forget the MachSim....AFAIK it is not being done at this point unless it's in MT

 

[RDub]

8 hours ago, JParis said:

If you're looking to included the Mill/Turn into the verification package you can forget the MachSim....AFAIK it is not being done at this point unless it's in MT

 

MT?  Mill Turn? Do you mean in Mastercam?

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, RDub said:

MT?  Mill Turn? Do you mean in Mastercam?

Yes....If you're looking to have MachSim done for your posts, that machine you're purchasing, the multitasking I don't believe can be done in MachSim....unless it's available as a <astercam Mill/Turn enviotment....but then you'd have to purchase MT to get it...

It's confusing I know but I think you'll be looking 3rd party for your verification solution

[Watcher]

Honestly... From the names you mentioned, only Vericut, Camplete and NCSimul are worth the effort... With NCSimul being the best bang for the buck in your scenario... 

JM2C