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.

As for PDM works (from Solidworks), we use it and it has worked out excellent!!! UG's equivilent is called "Teamcenter", and it is costly. I belive you would have to have an IT guy around constantly to maintain it as well. Very complicated. It's really geared towards very large companies who have hundred's or thousands of seats at their various facility's. Picture it this way: Boeing has 100 companies around the globe manufacturing their parts, with Teamcenter, they can all access them, update them, etc.. It's a way to store all the CAD/CAM, FEA, FEM, etc.. on a "worldwide network". This is wayyyy overkill unless your working at a similar type company. UG said it would run me about 35K for them to set up Teamcenter for my business, or I could send one of my guys to training for it for two weeks.

GCODE QUOTE "In SolidWorks, I can be on the last operation of a 4 operation part and discover that I need to move a tooling tab a 1/2 inch. If I've designed my stuff properly, I can change one number and the tooling tab will move along with the clamp attached to it and all the holes and hardware associated with that clamp. In a program like UG, Catia or even Camworks, all my toolpaths would automatically update to reflect that change. In Mastercam I have to delete the old solids, re-import the new ones and rework all the toolpaths affected by the change. If I could find a software with the power and fexibility on Mastercam that ran inside SolidWorks, I'd be gone in a flash. They havn't built it yet, but I check out every new one that comes along." GCODE,-I belive "Solidcam" which is manufactured by Solidworks and IS the fastest growing CAM software company today(CIMDATA 2005), will do exactly what I believe you are looking for(myself included). It runs inside Solidworks, and will update the toolpath (by regeneration, just as UG) as you've requested. You can download a DEMO at their site, or send or for a CD. I believe you have to have a seat of Solidworks for it to work though. With the amount of seats of Solidworks out there, I believe if their CAM product is as good, they will quickly become the "KING OF CAD/CAM". They state they can handle everything including 2-5 axis toolpaths, turn/mill's, and wire EDM Here's the link: www.solidcam.com

Thanks James!!!! That's exactly what I was hoping to find, something that has been proven on another Fanuc control. I will try feeding the Makino the code on Friday (I'm probably one of the rare few at work after Thansgiving Thursday). I will post back to you than. Thankyou for taking YOUR time to both find that, and post it. Thanks again!!

Ron, I suppose you right. I just assume because we only employ about a dozen people that it's a "small shop". The whole "gruck of the matter" comes down to one simple fact: When Mill/Turns started appearing a few years back, none of the CAM manufacturer's had much, if anything to offer. The machine manufacturer's (Mori, Mazak, etc..) were producing these high end, high dollar, very capable machines, but no one had anyway of programming them. Unless your shop bought one of these early mill/turns either set up by the manufacturer as a "turn key", or, you were only planning on running a few parts with long runs, or very simple parts, you were "SOL", period!!!! It didn't matter which manufacturer's you bought, they were all in the same boat early on. Luckily, there are CAM products available now to run most of these, and more being added each year. That pretty much sums it up!!!! Peace!!!

G-CODE--Are you using NX3 or their newest version NX4(If it hasn't been released yet, it's do out momenterily)? As Greg stated UG offers a graphical interface called "Postbuilder". I am not saying this being biased, but this "post builder" is the best post product I've yet to see in any CAM system. You have to see it to fully appreciate it. It actually asks you questions concerning the machine and how you want the post to work, and builds a post step by step. I cannot say I have tried it for any complex 5 axis toolpaths, however it is very basic to build a standard post. I believe this has only been around since NX3 (released last year). Hopefully Greg will be able to load some pic's, and if not I will try and get some up if you care to see what it's about. As for the ICAM deal, I spent some time working with the trying to get a post for the Nakamura a year or two ago. They were real "gung ho" at first, however after sending them all the statistics on the machine, they basically bailed out. They couldn't give me a quote to build the post, and I wasn't about to wait and get a final bill at the end.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mark Rief, VP CAM Development, UGS. He asked me how they could convince the small shop users to use NX. Simple, you can't. It is to pricey, to training intensive, small shops won't take the time or have the money to spend on 30k in training and it's not really geared to doing varied types of work well. I totally disagree!!! You aren't comparing apples to apples when you compare UG vs any other CAM system. UG bundles their full CAD system, 5-axis stuff, turning, milling, mill/turn, a post builder that has to be seen and used to believe, a full online training system called CAST which YOU control AND CAN LEARN AT YOUR SPEED AND ON YOUR TIME, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, SUBJECT BY SUBJECT, and even more more when you purchase a seat. Now compare the price of buying most other CAM systems (Mastercam, Esprit, Edgecam, etc..), who charge you for mill level 1, another charge for mill level 3, another charge for 5 axis capability, another charge for 2 axis turning, another charge for 4 or more axis turning, another charge for mill/turn, another charge for solids, more charges for developing posts, and on top of all this, you still don't have a CAD system, so now add a seat of Solidworks or Pro-E, add the extra's for FEA and FEM analysis, and now compare all those costs of that to a seat of UG NX3/4. This would be comparing apples to apples. I'm a small shop, and I have a quote right in front of me. UG is aggressively trying to get into the smaller shops, and are doing a much better job than previously. In fact, I know of three other small shops who recently purchased UG after looking at all the competitors. If they can get my mill/turn running in their ISV (simulation), I will be buying UG shortly. I have been using it for several months, and everyone else in the shop who has started with it loves it. Because we design and build our own products, having a complete system (CAD, CAM, FEA and FEM analysis) would work best for us. One seat of UG with all their design capability, 5 axis toolpath, etc.. was only slightly more than what I paid for a single seat of mill/turn from Esprit. We also spent time looked at CATIA V5, however you cannot compare it to UG. They both are excellent for design and 5 axis toolpaths, however UG sets itself apart when it comes to simple 2 axis work. CATIA may be excellent for 5 axis parts, however, they have very, very limited toolpath options if you wanted to program a simple part. UG NX3/4 on the other hand is not only easy to program simple parts, but it also offers alot of different toolpath options. Everyone at my facility liked UG NX3 the best out of all the CAM systems we tried and our currently using. It is NOT at all difficult to pick up and learn as many make it out to seem. Now, if you don't need a CAD system, produce 5 axis work, no multi-tasking machines, or only either mill or turn, buying UG would be way over kill and you probably would be wasting money. You could buy a simple CAM system and do just fine. [ 11-23-2005, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: DrewG ]

PETE--Yes I did meet you and your company that year at EASTEC, and all of your help was nothing short of exceptional. I dealt with a gentleman by the name of Frank Lussier who helped me out tremendously!!! He spent alot of time with me and I wanted to buy the CIMCO system from him/SFA, however, this "John Curry" (CIMCO Factory ??)got involoved from Canada, and I was forced to go thru him. He was the absolute worst!!! According to both Frank and Glenn Sharp, he screwed me with the pricing, sub rate components, and than left me "high and dry" with no support. I have had nothing but problems with communications, and still do to this day. I have been using the cheap, non industrial, "Linksys" hub for the wireless comunications, and everyday, the machines show "off line" and do not communicate. Glenn's fix is to shut down the hub, go to every machine and shut down each wireless receiver, wait 5 minutes, and than go back to every machine, turn on the wireless receivers, go to the server and turn on the Linksys hub, and start CIMCO server over again. It works everytime. But to have to do this everyday just to get code out to each machine is an absolute joke!!! I've been screaming to Glenn for support, however he states there is no CIMCO support for the New Jersey/New York area. The hardware they sent could've been purchased at Best Buy for a total of less than $500.00. I know I found it all there and priced it. No industrial quality stuff here. For 10K plus, I deserve alot more, period!!! Do you service the New Jersey area??? Thanks!!!!

The release of X wasn't "rocky", it goes beyond the upsurd. For such a large CAM company, they handled it terribly!!! They pissed a ton of people off, period, no denying that.

I believe CIM DATA's results are the most scientific. If you read the latest Data, CNC Software WAS number one in terms of seats sold everyear from 1995-2003. Since than UG has taken over the "crown". And the fastest growing CAM company in the market currently is Solidcam, period!! In 2004, there were 67,110 total seats of CAM software sold, with Mastercam selling 4,544 seats.

gcode---If I understand your statement above you believe that: "because you didn't see anyone posting a help wanted ad for programming using any of the above CAM systems (Esprit, Gibbs, Edgecam, Surfcam, Solidcam, OneCNC), and because you couldn't find any training manuals for the same, that none of these are in widespread use". Is this your conclusion??