"I heard he sweeps floors pretty good, course that was like 7 or 8 years ago in the NG." Hard to remember back that far but I think 8 years ago I was head of CADCAM systems for Precision Resource Tool and Die division. Precision Resource is one of the largest fineblanking firms in the U.S. http://www.precisionresource.com/ At that time I would have been using DP Esprit X and I would have been doing stuff like attending advanced macro training at D.P. Technology in Camarillo, CA. We had a janitor service so no one in engineering or on the shop floor ever swept the floor. If it makes you feel better where I work now is a much smaller job shop and I occasionally have the need to sweep or mop the floors while setting up jobs on our Mori Seiki vertical mill which is not enclosed. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Once this place got going, I never go there anymore. Less spam in here too." Seemed to me what really happened was you and Bottlebob got into a fight and you packed up and left. Too bad. There is more to machining life than just CADCAM. Bottlebob posted this link in alt.machines.cnc a few days ago. Perhaps you or others might enjoy this video. I know I did! www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3NVJ4pEFuY Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"kunfuzed, change at point does allow spindle speed change but only works on a contour toolpath, not pocketing, circlemill, surfacing toolpaths, etc... In those cases you need to use the toolpath editor. In either case it is graphical, you select the point where you want to make the change, and make the changes you desire. The reality of is that both of these shouldn't need to be used on anywhere near a regular basis." That reality is based on the type of work someone does. For some job shops changing feedrates while doing pocketing is needed on a regular basis. Would you like an example where changing the feedrate on a pocketing toolpath is needed on a regular basis? Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"I've never used Gibbs , but I've sat through numerous demos. Every one of them started with "We'll import this model and...." " Too funny. Still, Gibbs has some great ideas: Click on a geometry element and change it from "wall" to "air" so the cutter knows to plunge there and not into material. Machining Markers that can be dragged around the geometry / toolpath to control where the toolpath with start and end. Utility Markers that can be dragged where ever you wish to change the feedrate... from what has been posted I guess you can't change the feedrate on a toolpath in MasterCAM. For some reason I thought you could do this in MasterCAM. Note that Gibbs does all of this with a graphical approach rather than navigating threw dialog boxes. I guess it is obvious at this point that I prefer the graphical approach to editing where ever possible rather than the dialog box approach to editing. I wonder how others feel about using a graphical approach whenever possible? In my experience almost every job shop that I have worked in that has Gibbs does not use Gibbs for geometry creation. I actually like some of the stuff Gibbs does with point based geometry but I do not believe that point based geometry creation should be a users only choice. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ANY discussion of BobCad hard hitting critisim?" I don't think you're wrong. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona [ 12-27-2006, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: jon_banquer ]

"Perhaps your "friend" Bottlebob" Comment was made for James Meyette but I think its cool that you know Bottlebob. Bob is a pretty awesome human being and he is what holds alt.machines.cnc together. "But I know you live for this stuff." Very true. I've mellowed some over the years. Not much but some. Could be I'm just more confident in what I believe needs to be in a CADCAM system and that I feel time has proven me right... Seamless, unified, hybrid is getting much closer to reality in products like SolidWorks. In any case, James Meyettes post was helpful and gives me a good idea where MasterCAM X is at the moment. Even though I have very strong beliefs in regards to CADCAM I'm not a product loyalist. I live in a job shop world where multiple CADCAM systems are used. Here is something that I hope will make you laugh and is 100% true: The person who first introduced / trained me on a CNC machine is a long time CNC Software employee. He was my teacher when I went to the now defunct Hartech. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Smartcam was designed by engineers for engineers." From American Machinist December 2006: "In 1983, A CNC Machinist and a salesman at a CNC shop in Eugene, Oreg., who had both been experimenting with using the newly developed personal computers to automate CNC programming, got together and developed a software package called SmartCAM and founded company called Point Control." Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"I am not defending Jon, even though he comes off as quite negative. But, he can ask any question he likes, he may get flamed but he can ask." Thank you for posting that I do have the right to raise these questions. Unfortunatly I doubt most will agree with your statement. I guess what I really miss is the kind of progressive discussions I use to have with Mike Rosa of CNC Software on Usenet and at trade shows. Mike Rosa understood a lot of the points I made. While he could not do anything about the areas I felt needed changing I always felt he understood exactly where I was coming from. Jon Banquer (Graphical Toolpath Editing ®) Phoenix, Arizona

"Are you sure you're not on somebody's CAD/CAM payroll and in here to just stir the pot?" Gibbs of course. "I swear I NEVER hear those words from CAD/CAM end users, only sales and/or marketing people..." Perhaps your "friend" Bottlebob can help you to understand why I create them and like using them. "As for the palleted setup you described, my post processor handles that and WAY more all with programming one single part. The machine heeds to have Custom MACRO B though." If you read the palleted setup "Smarmy Dolt" described a little closer you should come to clearly understand that "Smarmy Dolt" did not want to use a macro. He wanted to do everything graphically. Do you feel that a user should have to resort to creating special posts and also have Fanuc Macro B installed in the CNC control to get real control over the toolpath? Clearly I don't and neither did "Smarmy". Don't get me wrong I think it's wonderful that MasterCAM has such a powerful post language and that MasterCAM exposes much more power in its post language than any other CADCAM system that I know of but I don't think this should be used as an excuse for not having the proper graphical tools to edit the toolpath! I believe your post was the only post to address what "Smarmy" complained about so many years ago on Usenet. Nice job! It is truly amazing to me that SmartCAM is still ahead of just about everyone else when it comes to control over the toolpath after being a non supported CADCAM system for so many years. Since so many MasterCAM users seem so paranoid I thought I would share this link so that anyone objective could see that I'm asking for this in other CADCAM systems and that others feel the same way as I do in regards to haveing Full Graphical Control Over The Toolpath... just had to get that in there once more. http://www.mecsoft.com/cgi/teemz/teemz.cgi...cement_Requests I like your idea about changing a pocket to a profile, etc. Seems like another way to not lock the user into a modal situation or maybe I should say not force the user down a one way street. Do you feel at this point that the CAM aspects of MasterCAM should take priority over the CAD ones? Seems to me they should as it looks like there is still a lot of work to do to make MasterCAM X CAM really stand out. Jon Banquer (Graphical Toolpath Editing ®) Phoenix, Arizona

"I MAY have to rechain the geometry, but all the toolpath parameters are still there." Not sure what this really means. Would it be possible for you to describe how MasterCAM X² would handle the alphabet example I gave above. This would be very helpful to my understanding of how MasterCAM X² handles changes to the toolpath. Thanks, Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Jon CNC would not have a issue with this.If it is a great tool that people ask for then they will do there best to implement this in." Does Mike Rosa still work for CNC Software? Does Mike Rosa post here? "I did not remeber you at first when I posted, but I was wondering what you were asking about and felt there was nothing wrong with you asking." Trust me... lots of people will not be happy that I am posting here. "When are you coming back to CNCzone?" When the owner of CNCzone puts CADCAM users before CADCAM advertisers. Hard hitting legit critisim of say BobCADCAM is not allowed on CNCzone. Interesting though it is allowed on the DelCAM forums. Check out this thread. http://forum.delcam.com/viewtopic.php?t=1459 Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"you must be hating it as I know that mastercam handles alot better then Gibbs does." Gibbs allows multiple feeds and speeds on a single toolpath. Gibbs geometry construction tools are *point based* and I don't believe that point based geometry construction is the way to go in many cases. On the Gibbs Web Forum Bill Gibbs has been asked by Gibbs users for traditional geometry tools and his response is that point based geometry tools are the only way to go. Needless to say I don't agree and based on that thread in the Gibbs Web Forum neither did any of the Gibbs users posting to that thread... all of who were ignored. When you create user named coordinate systems in Gibbs you can not reorder them so that the postprocessor will pick up the new order and progressively create G54, G55, G56, etc. You have to hope you created your user named coordinate systems in their final order to start with. Nice, huh? Gibbs has many nice tools but it does not have the power that SmartCAM does because Gibbs geometry tools are so weak. Toolpath is geometry in Gibbs but because the geometry tools are so weak this is not enough. Also, after many years there is still only one level of undo in Gibbs. The biggest problem I see with Gibbs is Bill Gibbs doesn't listen to those who are not happy and post on the Gibbs Web Forum. I am not one of those users as I don't post there. Instead I e-mail Bill Gibbs with what I see as problems. For the most part I get exactly the same treatment via e-mail as those who post on the Gibbs Web Forum asking for much needed changes. Many of those posters are not real happy because of the lack of progress in many areas. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Did't you use to live out here in Cali if I remember?" Lived in Connecticut for 36 of my 45. Then Florida for about 1 1/2 and then Arizona. I have a girlfriend in San Diego, CA who wants me to move but I fail to see where that would be a good move career wise. "So you are back to test us again?" I'd like to move to MasterCAM. MasterCAM is in the top 3 of CADCAM systems used in Phoenix. The other 2 are Gibbs and FeatureCAM. I see the massive amount of work put into creating MasterCAM X and I'm impressed. I'm hoping starting this thread is productive and starts what I think is a very important dialog on toolpath editing and what is really needed in MasterCAM X rather than having those who don't like my strong opinions railroad the thread and start in with personal attacks. I don't see SmartCAM in my future. I'm not sure if I see MasterCAM in my future because I don't know how CNC Software feels about what I have posted in regards to what I call "Graphical Toolpath Editing". I tend to like to find descriptive words for things that are important to me. I'm sure someone here remembers... Seamless, Unified, Hybrid when it came to how I think a CAD modeler should work. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"Major edits may break the link between geometry and toolpath. In that case, you will have to reselect your geometry." Okay. Lets discuss deleting the toolpath and reselecting the geometry and now make this the focus. Not every toolpath change happens because of a geometry change. Sometimes you see a better way to do something, sometimes a different part gets shoved in the mix, sometimes... who knows... change happens all the time in a small machining job shop doing very short runs. I fail to see why any CAM user should ever be forced to delete the existing toolpath and start all over. I'm sorry... I just can't accept that this makes sense. It seems to me the reason one often has to do this is to overcome a design limitation of their CAM system. "If you think "Full Graphical Control" is cool" I think full graphical control over the toolpath is mandatory when doing serious production milling. See the advanced example above. Why should toolpath be the "dumb blond"? Why shouldn't toolpath be as "intelligent" as geometry? Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"I don't know what SmartCam does with toolpath editing." I'll try again. There is basically no difference between toolpath and geometry in SmartCAM. All toolpath is in SmartCAM is geometry that is given a toolpath property. What this means is that all the tools you use to create and edit geometry you can use for toolpath editing. *Since there is so little difference between geometry and toolpath in SmartCAM you don't need a seperate toolpath editor*... you just use the same tools that you used to create, edit and group geometry for toolpath. In my opinion this is how all CADCAM programs should work. I hope this explination is clearer. I agree that SmartCAM is many years behind in many areas but not when it comes to what is important to me... the ability to have full graphical control over the toolpath. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

As I stated above I'm not a SmartCAM user and I consider it to be a very dated program in many ways. I'm not sure how that can be construed as a commerical for SmartCAM. I also stated the programs I do use currently... neither of which are SmartCAM. In fact I have never actively used SmartCAM at a job shop. Full graphical control over the toolpath is a term I coined to describe to someone how SmartCAM approachs toolpath editing. Since toolpath is basically geometry in SmartCAM do you feel this term that I came up with is not helpful? What would you call it? What term would you use to describe what SmartCAM does with toolpath editing? You're obviously unhappy with the control you now have over the toolpath in MasterCAM. I don't think the answer to your dissatisfaction with how MasterCAM now handles toolpath editing is to take my head off because I raised what appear to be very valid points on toolpath editing. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"How did Smartcam handle toolpath editing?" Hopefully my post above answered your question. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"I don't know how SmartCam does it, but I wish we could change spindle speed as well as feed rate with Mastercam." I hope my post explained it. I don't use SmartCAM but I understand exactly why many shops still do and why others who have changed to other CADCAM systems are so frustrated. I happen to use Gibbs and FeatureCAM right now. I'm not happy with either because I want full graphical control over the toolpath and neither provide what SmartCAM does. In my opinion full graphical control over the toolpath is the single most important thing in a CADCAM system. Obviously many people don't agree with me on this and I'm often labeled a troublemaker for this kind of strong belief. See the post above warning me not to "stir the pot". I would also like to know how a CADCAM system can improve if users don't "stir the pot"? Are you sure there is no way to change spindle speed and feedrate in MasterCAM? I seem to remember you could make this change in earlier versions of MasterCAM but perhaps I don't have this right. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

Jay, For serious production milling where multi-part, multi-pallet, multi-vise machining is the norm when change occurs it can be pure hell if the user does not have *full graphical control* over the toolpath. Without a doubt full graphical control over the toolpath is what has kept many machining job shops in the Phoenix, Arizona area using an outdated program like SmartCAM which for many years received no updates. The reason SmartCAM is still widely used in serious production machining job shops in the Phoenix, Arizona area is that SmartCAM was built from the ground up to handle change. The authors of SmartCAM accomplished this by giving the user full graphical editing control over the toolpath. Most CADCAM programs today don't handle change very well and give the user little or no control over the toolpath. In SmartCAM you can use all the geometry `creation, editing, grouping, sorting, etc. tools for toolpath. In fact, geometry becomes toolpath in SmartCAM when you give geometry a toolpath property. The simple example I like to use is to explain this is this one: Let say we have the letters of the alphabet that we wish to machine. We start by laying toolpath down on the letter "A" and chain until we hit letter "Z". Now here comes the challenge that almost every CADCAM system that I know of fails at or makes it so miserable for the user to edit that you have to start all over again by deleting the chained toolpath that cuts "A" to "Z": The challenge is this: Modify the existing toolpath used to cut "A" to "Z" and now start machining at say the letter "P" to "Z" and then "O" to "A". I want to know if and how MasterCAM X² can do what SmartCAM is so easily able to do because it treats toolpath exactly like geometry and gives you all the geometry tools to work with toolpath. Finally here is a more advanced example that I would like to know if and how MasterCAM X² handles. This was posted some years ago on Usenet and shows just how totally frustrated many production machining job shops are with their lousy CAM choices: "Hey,Here's a bug-a-boo that's tripped-up all the CAM systems I own and the ones I have demoed to replace the ones I own. The situation boiled down to one tool. The reality of it is two pallets, 10 double vices, 20 Work Coordinate Systems (G54x) and 28 tools: Pallet-1 The Front. Tool One tool cuts on three different fixtures. Each fixture has a different part in it. Each Fixture has its own Work Coordinate System. G54, G55, G56 Pallet-2. The Back - Physically a duplicate setup of Pallet 1. The same tool with the same H/H or H/D offsets cuts on three different Work Coordinate Systems. G57, G58, G59. A) I want to be able to do the work of generating motion on the front pallet only. Complete. Then have the CAM allow me to duplicate the motions on the back pallet using different Work Coordinate systems. The CAM system must know that the edits to the operations of tool 1(front) must be automatically applied to wherever the same Tool One operation was dropped. I'm lazy and feel that the CAM should let me tweak the feeds for the front pallet and have the back follow suite. That is, drop the "motion" on the back pallet from the front and have any eventual edits to Tool One's feed rate and cutting motion update the back pallet "duplicate" as well the front pallet "original". The Work Coordinate Systems must be changeable by Windowing. I'm not going to edit 24 tools on 20 WCS through 120 ops. I'm just not. C) The tools must be sortable by Pallet and Tool number. Let us not forget that Tool One gets used on Pallet1 *and* Pallet2 but with an intervening pallet swap. Nothing worse that watching a CAM system sort by tool and see Tool One rapid through the door of the CNC to work on the back pallet that just happens to be three feet in -X overtravel. D) There will be no cutting and there will be no pasting of g-codes - I don't need the practice. The code - no matter how it *looks* - will come out of the CAM system and go into the control. I will then touch off the tools and fixtures and push the Cycle Start button. E) There will be no custom macro that, I am assured, will work most of the time if my cutting situations stay "relatively" the same." Thanks for the interest, Jay. I appreciate it. Hope I can get some specifics on how this can or can't be done in MasterCAM X² Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona [ 12-25-2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: jon_banquer ]

Do any of you miss the way toolpath editing is done in SmartCAM compared to how it is done in MasterCAM? Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona

"I would HOPE people don't want kinnematics(sp?) and the like in their CAM software. That would totally detract from the core mission of the software - program macines to cut parts." Could not agree more. I would hope that CNC Software is aware that a CAD program like SolidWorks is really a general purpose CAD program and that this opens the door for a CAD package that is easier and more effective to use for a machinist when your main purpose is not all out design but to machine what you create. Does anyone here really think that a balls to the walls design CAD package in MasterCAM is really even possible at this point? I don't. I think this is an unrealistic goal for MasterCAM at this point in time. I think resources could be better spent making wireframe (already decent progress has been made on wireframe) solid and surface creation faster and easier than it is in say SolidWorks. I guess I'm thinking that having a CAD package in MasterCAM that in some ways is similar to what Rhino offers might be much better received in the marketplace rather than yet another "me to" modeler. I think IronCAD's concept of a non-modal type sketcher would work well in MasterCAM. Personally, I really hate being forced into a seperate zone just to sketch. I think it's an outdated concept. Jon Banquer Phoenix, Arizona [ 12-07-2006, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: jon_banquer ]

No reason CNC Software can't give the MasterCAM user the option to use parametrics rather than forcing those who don't wish to use parametrics to use them. The drawback is that when you make changes the model / assembly might not automatically rebuild... so what. If someone wants this they can use something like SolidWorks. A much stronger CAD package for MasterCAM should mean that MasterCAM can grab a larger market share than they have now and should be priority one. Jon Banquer (Who let him in here? ) Phoenix, Arizona