J, Another thing that just crossed my mind was that even if they had done this exact model before, odds are high they could not re-use it for your project. The reason is NDAs. Most customers and machine builders demand NDAs to share information. If Spring is running their business ethically, and I believe they are, they could not sell an existing machine to you or even use it as the basis of yours. Only if they build it to stock. CGTech for example make stock machines as a starting point, on their own initiative. Usually off-the-shelf machines like Haas, certain Mazak models, etc. Machines that people order all the time or have high demand in the market. We bought years ago an Integrex e-1060V from them (Before it went into the demo library ) and a Mori NT-5400 not so long ago. They were readily available because they were common machines. I doubt a Versatech is considered an off-the-shelf machine by Spring. Also, these CAV suppliers have their partnership agreements with machine builders, and they trace strategies to develop their own turn-key packages for certain machine brands & models. See CAMPlete coverage for Matsuuras. They probably adjust models and machine unique measurements or options and ship a turn-key solution to the customers. What can be a strategy from CGTech to have Versatech machine on stock because of their marketing strategy with Mazak, may not be equal on Spring´s side. I´ve built myself dozens of machines in Vericut in the past 15 years. 6 of them were WFLs - From the 6, 4 I built together with CGTech and two on my own. CGTech never ever re-used stuff from other customers and AFAIK respected all NDAs they signed with us and WFL. I remember going through hard times trying to figure things out with CGTech support, things I knew they went through with other WFL customers. They never took the shortest path with us and today I can see how important that was. Same way, we developed unique things with them for WFL simulation that I´m confident no other company in the world has seen yet. Things that are not even in the help documentation so far. The ethical aspect of how a company conducts its business speaks volumes to me and my employer.

J, In your shoes I´d break this problem into smaller pieces and try to answer them: Do they support head head machines? Do they support collinear axis in case a RAM is present? Do they support attachments in case I ordered the machine with special heads? Do they support Mazatrol control already? Remember Mazak is very consistent about their EIA code across multiple machine models. Do they have support for CAD models from a known format, like STEP? If you answer to these questions is yes, it´s very likely that they can build your machine safely. Of course it will take a little longer and you will have to validate a lot in some areas. All in all it is a straightforward gantry mill with a head-head kinematics. I´m sure they´ve done a bunch of similar machines. Nobody starts from the scratch... Nearly everything in CAx is a bunch of small problems solved separately and merged into a final solution. But for 1/6 of the cost and the chance to introduce CAV in your shop... I´d not hold my breath... It´s well worth the effort... Remember: A lot of what happens during the development of posts and machine simulation depends on how much engagement the customer puts on the effort. Every off-the-shelf machine or post-processor (If such thing exists) started with someone... Not funny to be the Guinea-Pig but this is likely a safe bet.. If and only if their support is as good as their competitor´s, which from experience I can recommend. I personally love to do things that were never done before. It makes me feel I somehow contribute to the development of my beloved trade.

Let´s not forget that´s why you buy a custom post from Postability first place.

This one G?

I think you are talking about Jon Prun. AFAIK he is the solely founder and owner of CGTech.

Not sure if everybody knows what the Z-Buffer technique represents in the CAD/CAM graphical world, but I´ll try to explain it in a very simple and short way: It calculates the color and position of pixels depending on their depth in the screen, so depending on the orientation of you part, its surface colors changes and have that shadow effect due to Z-Buffer. This is a very very simplified explanation. Z-buffering In VERICUT, the position of each pixel in the screen is stored in an internal database. Position, depth, color, etc. When you pan, zoom or rotate a part, VERICUT needs to calculate the new location of that pixel using matrices. Therefore, it needs to be on a pause to do that. And that is also what makes it to require refining in order to have an accurate view, which has the side of effect of being time consuming depending on the complexity and size of your part. It used to be a very effective way to handle graphics long time ago. It´s not uncommon to see VERICUT graphical performance to be better with cheap cards as they handle pixel based stuff better than high end cards, which are optimized for OpenGL and cutting Edge 3D graphics technology.

I don´t think Java is their limitation. I think their are bonded to decisions that made sense 20/30 years ago and that today are dragging their feet. Their graphical engine is one of them. Z Buffer Technique to represent pixels made sense in an era where graphic cards were a luxury. NCSimul was written on the top of OpenGL since day one. That is the real deal. If CGTech change their graphical engine, I think they could have problems to open files from previous versions. But that´s a half baked hunch as well because all a VcProject file is is the organization of a collection of files in a certain hierarchy. They don´t store binary data like a regular CAD/CAM system.

This is really the beautiful part. We do BIG parts on BIG MillTurns and the need to reset is indeed a pain in the xxxx. In-Session files are more a pain than a solution I think. I really hope CGTech could add this capability to VERICUT. No chance to change systems here - VERICUT is very well customized for our needs, we have dozens of sites using it and it does an excellent job anyway. I´m sure it beats NCSimul in some fronts too. But if I was picking systems, that part would really have a big influence on my call. I hope CGTech Product Management is reading this.

As a general rule, I´d say that any software that can emulate robots reliably from NC code can drive nearly all machine tool models available. Robots demand a mix of nearly everything.

I just checked again and it seems this Versatech model does not have a RAM, only the two Z columns. Is that correct? If so, there´s no way NCSimul cannot cover it well. They support a lot more complicated kinematics, like Scharmann ECOSPEED Sprint Z3 parallel kinematics head, or Zimmerman´s ABC heads.

I´m sorry... you said that before... Don´t see how they could not. This machine has a RAM, which demands support for collinear axes in the CAV system. They could not emulate HBMs without this support. They´re Mazak partners as well. Chances are close to 0 that they could NOT support you machine.

Out of curiosity - What machine?

Nothing wrong about finding an alternative for VERICUT. I don´t know the price tags for the two producs in U.S., but I couldn´t care less. NCSimul is a decent product and their strategy to penetrate in U.S. market is to have a more affordable price. It´s a business strategy and it does not mean they have a lower quality product. I´m a firm believer and proponent of CAV in our industry. Once I implemented it here, I reduced our rework rate in NC-Programming from 17% to less than 2% in 3 years. NCSimul could have achieved the same I´m sure. It´s the CAV technology and not the brand behind it. If you company achieve the improvements you aim and you feel you guys are spending the right money on it, that´s what matters. I think NCSimul is a great product and if their support is as responsive as CGTech´s, you will get a pretty good bang for the buck.

What I said is that if any type of lock in was present, I'd not go ahead. But it's clear now that they assured you no lock in would exist for you. And that's all you had to hear. Vericut single platform for example is an entry point for some companies, but they have zero possibilities to tweak their configuration files.

Very unlikely there's a machine setup they never covered before... It's a pretty decent product and used in demanding niches as well. I'd say go for it if that's what your guts are telling you. One thing I like about Vericut is that I've freedom to change and create new machines. It's well documented as well. I'd look for the same in NCSimul. A lock in in any development front from an user perspective is a no go to me. Two areas where I'm sure it beats Vericut is graphical performance and parsing of NC code.

I think you guys started with the right foot in regards the post processor, although it didn't seem to be like that in the 1st moment. Many companies don't realize the importance of obtaining the post from a reliable and experienced provider. Now you have all the information the post writer needs, will get this to work in no time. It's just a configuration issue I'm sure, maybe due to your 'exotic' setup. Maybe the post/machine definition that was delivered to you was configured to assume you would use a trunnion in the regular way/orientation. Often companies that save money in a post end up in a dead end. That's not your case here. The post you ordered is provided by world class professionals and you will experience this very soon.

Think about it in terms of primary and secondary axes. There a good posts here about this, and some other blogs out there with details. But in a trunnion, usually the primary is C and the secondary is the other axis. I think your setup I correct in this aspect, otherwise the post would not output correct angles even for 3+2.

By the way: Is Mastercam Art an active, still developed/maintained add-on?

This sounds like a wrong vector definition for the rotaries origins and their directions. If I'm correct, you're pretty close to a fix.

In the mean time, invest 500 bucks on Colin's post class. Everyday this machine is not using its 5 axis capabilites is far more money your company is burning. This course will bring light to the darkness you live now.

Now go to the Haas tech and ask him how many machine builders he already worked for. Maybe Haas is the only kool-aid he ever had in his entire machine technician life. Roeders, Hermle and all brands Ron mentioned are all high accuracy 5 axis machines, all with acceleration rates far higher than a Haas with positional accuracy at least 10x higher as well. The Haas technician was unfortunate in his statement.

I think if one order a TCP Seiki option then it should be fine.

Always learn from you Ron. On the practical 5 axis milling is hard to follow you and Tom.

These options can co-exist. I don't know a single scenario where inverse time is superior than TCPM. I think you bought your Okuma from a uninformed salesman. He should at least have offered TCPM to you and/or highlighted the differences. Unfortunately this is not an unusual situation.

Order TCPM from Okuma and set up a post that uses it.