Hardmill--"As Ive said before it does a great job but some tasks that are sooo simple with other software are quite a chore in Esprit." You are sooo correct, and don't forget about how cumbersome it is to try and "draw" or "design" something with it. I realize that Esprit is a CAM system and don't expect it to be Solidworks, however for some very simple tasks, it could be alot easier. I also don't like having to waste time creating "chains" on a very perfect solid model in order to drive tool path. It's very time consumming, especially with open pockets. It's funny how you drive off the model for 3-D tool paths, but have to create geometry/chains for every simple 2D tool path. I would like to be able to just click on the solid model to drive my tool paths as in UG.

Crazy-- As far as Esprit, they're biggest "draw" is their "simulation". I've spoke with so many buyers in similar situations as mine 4 years ago, and after looking at the competition--Gibbs, Partmaker, EdgeCam and Esprit, everyone leans towards Esprit because of the simulation and their graphics. This is NOT to say Esprit is the best, its just that Esprit's simulation seems to "close the deal". I don't believe that buyers will be "making chips" with Esprit faster than any of the others. In fact, I believe both Gibbs and Edgecam to be easier to learn and thus make parts. As stated by others, my staff and I all felt that Esprit was very difficult to learn when compared to M/C or Gibbs for instance. We spent approx. 2 years working with Esprit, Gibbs, Edgecam, and UG NX. We loved UG NX and if they didn't give me a quote of almost 100K for a seat of their software, simulation, and post, we would be using it. We all thought UG NX was the "cat's meow" and would've loved to have been using it. if I hit the lottery, I would buy UG tomorrow. UG could run every machine in the shop; milling, turning, mill-turns, 3-5 axis, etc.. with the type of tool paths you want.

I haven't been on this forum for some time. I cannot believe it's been 4 years since we switched to Esprit from M/C for the very same problem-Mill/Turn!!! We went thru these very same issues 4 plus years ago. It's really unbelievable: when it comes to buying a Mill/Turn machine-you have to find out about software FIRST, before making a final decision on which manufacturer's machine you should buy. It's no good spending $500,000.00 plus on a mill/turn if you don't have the software in place to run it efficiently. Believe me, we found out the hard way, very hard way!!!!

How do you handle programming parts on a tombstone set up the following way: 4 sided tombstone with one Kurt/Chick/TECO, etc.. double lock vise on each side. The vise holds two parts and the parts are located from the stationary center jaw, NOT the outer jaw on one part, and center jaw on the other. In other words, the upper part locates bottom lefthand corner, and the lower part locates upper lefthand corner. This way the part is always located against a "hard stop". Use individual offsets for each part, (1 vise a face X 4 faces = 8 parts total), in order to allow some "tweaking" of sizes, as opposed to "center out programming". Obviously I want the fastest machine time, and the least amount of toolchanges. I want to be able to use tool #1 on the upper part, than the lower part, rotate 90, upper part, than lower part, rotate, etc...Grab tool #2 and repeat above procedure. I don't want to have to complete each part using all tools needed, and THAN move to the next part, or have to complete all the upper parts, and than start the lower parts. Now remember, the work offset's between the upper parts and lower parts are DIFFERENT--bottom lefthand corner for upper parts, upper lefthand corner for lower parts. I had so many people try to get this to work in Mastercam, to no avail, including my reseller. This doesn't seem out of the ordinary. In fact, I bet most people use the "center jaw" to locate parts when using a KURT/CHICK/TECO, etc... type double lock style vise. It doesn't make sense to either have to "rotate" additional times, or change the "same tool" just to be able to do this. Anyone else working in a similar set up??

Believe it or not, I have been "trying" Solidcam for the last few weeks. As some know I've used Mastercam, Gibbs, Esprit, UGNX3, Smartcam, Edgecam, and most recently I looked into Solidcam. Here's just a few comments based on my short experience using it: Just in case you don't know, you MUST have Solidworks for CAD in order to use Solidcam. If your using another CAD system, you will have to incorporate Solidworks as Solidcam works "inside" Solidworks' interface. This combo(CAD/CAM) does not compare to UGNX3 in cost or ability. It does not have the features, toolpaths, or complexity of UG, nor the costs. The associativity is very nice, as making changes to a model and updating the toolpath all inside one system is so sweet. The ability to keep everything associated with the part, tools, holders, fixtures, etc.. all inside one system as assembly's using Solidworks' PDM works is awesome. Solidcam is one of only two "Gold Partners" with Solidworks. This enables the user to not only access the geometry, but also includes the feature tree, dimension tolerances, GD&Ts, surface finish symbols, sketch entities, notes, and other items related to the product definition. As a "Gold Partner", Solidcam maintains a close relationship with Solidworks product development. Alpha and Beta versions of new Solidworks releases are provided to Solidcam so that necessary mod's or additional features can be added to Solidcam to take advantage of new Solidworks functionality. Solidcam is written in C++. Users can customize certain aspects of the Solidcam system, such as machining processes, technological database for hole recognition and machining, however Solidcam does not provide API-based customization using tools such as "Visual Basics". SolidCAM is relatively easy to learn and use. We were able to apply simple toolpaths on our models relatively quickly compared to most other CAM systems we tried. However, with this ease, comes some downsides. The ability to "get the best possible toolpaths" either wasn't possible, or took alot of "side steps". Solidcam does not support NURBS, Mill-Turn simulation, sub spindle's, "pinch turning", constant cutter load, but does offer some of the newer "trochoidal" and "plunge milling" toolpaths. Solidcam supports 2 axis, 2 + 3 axis, all the way to full 5 axis toolpaths. Solidcam offers several different simulation options including 3D simulation which is supported by MachineWorks. MachineWorks is an outside vendor that supplies several CAM systems with toolpath verification. In MachineWorks, simulation occurs BEFORE posting and BEFORE G-codes are computed in the post processor. Not exactly the most accurate simulation(ala Vericut). Solidcam uses and developed its own post processer as opposed to using an outside vendor(ala ). Unlike most CAM systems, a CL-file(cutter location file) is NOT directly generated in Solidcam. It can be generated from a post processor. Instead, Solidcam employs its own internal code that is unique to Solidcam. It is referred to as a "parameter code or P code". Solidcam believes that their "P code" is more efficient than the use of a "CL file". Sub-routines are built into this "P code". If an operation is to take place at multiple levels the commands are only created once, as compared to being generated for each level. The Solidcam program output is very efficient. If the same operation is performed several times the commands are only recorded once in the output, thereby minimizing the program length. In many other systems the commands are often repeated. I could ramble on and on, but I hope I gave you a few things to consider. You can read all about the "good and bad" concerning Solidcam, and for that matter, almost all the CAD/CAM products from CIMDATA. They are an independent company that reviews products similar to "Consumer Reports". They have reviews on almost all the CAD/CAM companies out there. Some of the points I spoke of above are directly quoted from CIMDATA'a report on Solidcam. You can request it from either Cimdata or Solidcam. Good luck!!!

Yes, GIBBS will output sub's (G54-G59) with no problem. We used GIBBS for awhile and did exactly that for our Haas'.

I programmed and ran VMC's for years, and was quite apprehensive about the new Makino A66E HMC coming in. Now after two years of working on it, I love it, and prefer using the HMC whenever possible. Having the ability to work on several sides of a part and the HMC's "chip evacuation" advantage can't be beat. I find it a bit easier and sometimes faster to use the verticle if I have an "easy, one or two part job" vs the HMC. Depending upon the size of the machine, it can be a bit difficult to "get in there and indicate a part" on a HMC vs the VMC. Most people will agree HMC's are used more for "production" vs "one off's" or "prototype" work that you may see on a VMC. If your familiar programming VMC's, the jump to HMC's isn't bad at all. In fact, I took it as a challange, and found it to be much easier than I originally thought. Good luck!!!!

James, I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet. I'm sorry. I have been awaiting a call back from Jeff Wallace at Makino to see if he can answer some of my questions. It seems he is always on the road, so I may not wait any longer. I'll try it this week at some point, whether I hear from him or not. I promise to post once I figure it out in the hopes it may help someone out in the future. Thanks!!

Anyone use this "plinge mill cycle" and if so, could you share your experience? Thanks!!

JMPARIS--Now all you need to do is "get me back" (using Mastercam)(LOL). You never know. If they get their MATTS going, I'll be first in line. Congrat's on your decision Matt!!!

Just curios if Mastercam's newest X product offers a "plunge milling cycle. Not a drill cycle that you can use as a "work around", but an actual "plunge mill" cycle developed strictly for plunge milling. I could save so much time plunge milling if I had this cycle. I realize alot of people use a "drilling or pecking" cycle for a plunge mill cycle, however I have come across alot of issues using these type "fix it cycles". I appreciate any answers or experiences anyone would like to take THEIR time to post. Thanks in advance!!!

Oh, by the way, if you are using heatshrink holders, you will especially love the Robbjacks, as their shank tolerances are THE tightest in the industry at -.0001/-.0002. They hold one tenth on their shanks. I don't believe you will find any other company that will state those shank tolerances. This makes for consistent heat shrinking of tools every time, all the time. I have used alot of endmills from just about every mid to high end company, and I have almost always had inconsistent shrinking issues, that is until I used Robbjacks. Just my experience, hope it helps!!!

ROBBJACK Endmill's will make you any endmill in any length exactly to your needs. They are not the cheapest, however in the industry, they are known for holding THE tightest tolerances and building some of the best endmills on the market. I have reduced shank endmills with coolant grooves made by them every month. I run 4.00 OAL, .625 LOC w/ 2.00 reduced shank. They also offer both a "Feather Blend" option so that you will not see a step down line as you mill deeper, as well as a "Mirror Edge" prep which reduces and in most case eliminates chatter issues with these longer lengths. I use .187 - .750 diameters in the above dimensions. www.robbjack.com

Carl, I was also having problems with trying to get the data server to work. This Makino is part of a cell with a Cell Controller. I will have to see how Makino handles this. The M98 sub program is set up the way Makino calls for it in their Cell Controller example. Thanks!!!

"Instead focus on the future costs and revenues. I think this also applies to cad/cam software." I am a perfect example of that. A smaller shop with three different CAM systems, and about 100K wrapped up in them. I could've saved about 40K when I purchased a new system to run my machines, including the mill/turn, by sticking with Mastercam, and spending a million hours editing code at the machine. It is possible to produce code using Mastercam to run these mill/turns. However, the amount of time I saved by having a CAM system that could post directly to the the machine without having to edit at the control, and also offered simulation to avoid costly "crashes" paid for itself rather quickly. The machine is making my parts, while we're programming the next part. If I had stayed with Mastercam, the machine would spent alot of time being used for writing and testing the program, rather than machining the part. This "downtime" adds up quickly when you have alot of parts to program. Everyone knows if your machine isn't cutting chips, it's not making you money. I am always looking at new software, and have no allegence to any one brand. If I find something that in the long term will enable me to produce parts quicker, I'll spend my money again, and add to my list of CAM software seats.