What's new
What's new

If money was no object, what software/softwares would you buy? CAD and CAM

goooose

Hot Rolled
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Location
canada
would like to hear some opinions on this. money...sky is the limit, you can pick more than one of each CAM or CAD but give reasons please...please no 'Id get masterCam cause its the best' :dunce:
 
I would purchase a combination of Catia V5 , and Icam for posting / simulation.

However that would set me back probably 75k.. :bawling:
 
Well, as far as CAD goes, I've already got it and it has nothing to do with money... It's Rhino. Why? Because it does all the things I need it to and then some, it's flexible, programmable, and not branch-specific. While I have a lot of respect for something like SW, it couldn't do 1/4 of the things I need to do every day - but then again I'm not in the mechanical design business... ymmv. More money doesn't always buy you a better program, software that is tailored for your needs is always the best investment no matter what the initial buy price.

As far as CAM goes, it doesn't exist. I want something that has toolpaths as good and reliable as Surfcam with an interface as simple as (but 10x better than) RhinoCAM/Visual Mill. That can machine on surfaces and meshes or any combination and isn't afraid of large data sets.

--ch
 
I tried SolidWorks Premium which turned out to be an infernal system for sending out files. Virtually all of them have to be converted because very few people have the same edition. SolidWorks thought it "clever" that they could force everyone to pay yearly upgrade charges. Instead, they ended up with a kludge system that works in house. To export files you have to contact the recipient to make sure they have the same version or you hope the conversion will be accurate. Prepare yourself for several iterations.
 
If money were no object I'd buy a high end CAM, CAD and CNC maker and then create my own fully integrated system. G code would be gone. The CAD/CAM would talk directly to the CNC and the CNC would talk back. It would be a "what you see is what you get" system. I'm not talking Mazak conversational or anything like that. I'm talking state of the art CAM that directly drives the CNC with very deep and powerful integration.

I've written about this on here before. [U]The possibilities with a system like this are pretty much whatever you can imagine.[/U] G code is the bottle neck and holds us back SO much from what would be possible. Why have the stone age g code middle man between your CAM and the CNC? How does that help anything? There is nothing that can be done with g code that couldn't be done with CAM. The power of the CNC and CAM talking directly to each other would be absolutely huge. Think way beyond not having to post process anymore. Think GOD level control over machining.
 
If money were no object, I would buy exactly what I use everyday at work. Rhino, for modeling, madCAM for quick toolpaths, and WorkNC for the complex stuff. Honestly, with the way Rhino 5 is coming along, I'd probably hold off buying SpaceClaim.

Dan
 
John Wheldon has it about right. I might start a new firm rather than buy existing ones.

However, replacing G-code and the rest of that fine path dependency, offering all of the costs of compatibility with the none of the benefits, is a much harder problem. That likely requires buying every CNC machine on Earth, fixing them, and then giving them back.

But yes, buy Dassault and apply the Vise Of Ownership would be a good plan.
 
John, have you read much on STEP NC?

The idea, many years ago, was that once a database--probably better described as a 'knowledge-base'--was built, that all you'd need are the actual 3D model files; part, stock, fixturing, machine. From there the 'code' is created in STEP file format, the machine reads the model data directly, no M or G code, no post-processing. Of course the machine controller needs to be STEP compatible to do this...

Seemed like a great idea, and it IS, but you can imagine the resistance from CAM and control manufacturers.

Interesting reading either way: STEP-NC Machining Demo, Oct. 2008 - YouTube
 
John Wheldon has it about right. I might start a new firm rather than buy existing ones.

However, replacing G-code and the rest of that fine path dependency, offering all of the costs of compatibility with the none of the benefits, is a much harder problem. That likely requires buying every CNC machine on Earth, fixing them, and then giving them back.

Those points and a bunch of others make my/the idea very very hard to do. Big changes are always hard, especially with stubborn machinists! But, owners want to make more money by being more efficient and a closed loop/integrated system would be huge for getting there. It has to happen sooner or later. We will still be using g code in 20 years? Please..... god no.
 
John, have you read much on STEP NC?

The idea, many years ago, was that once a database--probably better described as a 'knowledge-base'--was built, that all you'd need are the actual 3D model files; part, stock, fixturing, machine. From there the 'code' is created in STEP file format, the machine reads the model data directly, no M or G code, no post-processing. Of course the machine controller needs to be STEP compatible to do this...

Interesting reading either way: STEP-NC Machining Demo, Oct. 2008 - YouTube

YES! PLEASE CAN WE HAVE THAT!

I hadn't seen that video before, thanks for the link. Look how powerful that shit is and the sky is the limit! God level control and efficiency!

"Seemed like a great idea, and it IS, but you can imagine the resistance from CAM and control manufacturers. "

That's why I said I'd buy the CAM CAD and Machine builder to pull it off. The whole deal would have to be an all new system people buy into. There's the old g code way of machining, and the new way. New machines, new everything. Leave the past in the past and move on.


Here is another video I found. So cool.
Scania STEP-NC Machining - YouTube
 
Interesting video. :)

Of course, you can drive the inspection with a probe for in-process changes and rework as they mentioned but doing it manually is going to be a huge plus for some folks, no doubt.

Siemens has more than a passing interest in STEP, so that's a good sign. I know when the idea was initially tossed around, it seemed no one had the vision for it and a couple of companies quickly lost interest. I'm really interested in seeing where it goes from here though.

Meant to link this earlier: The Changing Face Of CNC Programming : Modern Machine Shop
 
STEP aside, heh...

If I had only one choice, in the more popular choices, it would be UG/NX. It's not the simplest to use, but then, flying a 777 isn't as easy as flying a Cessna either.

When I do pull the plug for machines, they will do the 'easy' stuff at the controller. It's just too damned easy with the right machine controls vs running to a CAM system. A good control can do 75% of what most shops need right there at the machine. Though you'll pay more for it upfront.
 
If money were no object I would buy charting software - you know - to go with my yacht.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
If cow turds were biscuits we would eat til we died.
 
With a good post processor, it should be a closed loop system. Make your toolpaths, verify, post, and go.

Or don't have G code and be able to do a 1000 times more stuff easier and faster.

It will be like everything else in the machining world, people will fight anything that's new until its rediculosly obvious the old way sucks. I wouldn't doubt if there are still people skeptical about carbide.
 








 
Back
Top