New Cam Software NX or Esprit

[OVodov]

Once again in all other software ONLY one working plane needed.
Programing complex 5 axis positioning plane (3+2) I had to create plane for each position.
And then choose the right one.
I had a job with 28 planes. So try to feel my pain.
From experience I would say MasterCam much more versatile than SolidCam,
but SolidCam much more user friendly and programing in it takes less time.

 

[cameraman]

Once again in all other software ONLY one working plane needed.
Programing complex 5 axis positioning plane (3+2) I had to create plane for each position.
And then choose the right one.
I had a job with 28 planes. So try to feel my pain.
From experience I would say MasterCam much more versatile than SolidCam,
but SolidCam much more user friendly and programing in it takes less time.

I actually found that t be a very helpful "relative" comparison response / delineation - Cheers for that.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* In an old CAD laboratory R&D CAD department years ago - we always said you could have high level software that makes things easy but it's a little "Dumb" sometimes, and then you can have lower level intricate itty bitty detailed functionality that allows you to do smarter things - but it requires more knowledge and time / steeper learning curve (as we all know) - It's difficult to have something that's high level and "smart" / intelligent in spite of being easy to use.


That's kinda why I'm interested in seeing / experiencing what these NEW more 'AI" based tools that ESPRIT have finally rolled out. AI being a bit of buzz word but I guess more 'Expert system" architecture that responds more globally from things going on in a smaller user driven context ? - Without messing things up, or being obstructive through "Guessing wrong" or endlessly irritating prompts asking permission to do this or that or " Do you really mean to do this - 'cuz that could 'eff up a ton of things you don't even know about " - <Promt> ? Seems this newer ESPRIT architecture (or management/ layer of control) is not just a five axis thing but could be a three axis thing also ? I think it's more than just smarter tool/ tooling definitions etc. or just having changes ripple through more "Intelligently" ?

Sometimes with higher level software you can break into a lower level of control for things but then kind of degenerates into hand coding or super clunky abstract interface to get what you really want i.e. there may be lower level tools but not that much time and $ has been put toward their development as that's not really the intended market or targeted group of users ?

 

[OVodov]

Talking about 5x simultaneous machining, I don't know anything about Esprit, but Mastercam, SolidCam, GibbsCam and many others use module
from ModuleWorks with some adjustments. So their possibility are similar.
Hypermill now is a leader in this kind of machining and I heard NX CAM is pretty powerful as well.

 

[cameraman]

Talking about 5x simultaneous machining, I don't know anything about Esprit, but Mastercam, SolidCam, GibbsCam and many others use module
from ModuleWorks with some adjustments. So their possibility are similar.
Hypermill now is a leader in this kind of machining and I heard NX CAM is pretty powerful as well.

I was trying to "Map" your distinction between SolidCam and MasterCam in terms of higher level (SolidCam) = easier; versus - lower level control/ tools - (MasterCAm)to get what you really want in a more detailed/ sophisticated end result VS. Possibly ESPRIT where they may have "Solved" the problem of those differences/ distinctions..?

So YES kinda pivoting off what you wrote to "Fish" (not Phish) for maybe more info from the ESPRIT end of the pond ?

I have to say some of @empwoer's comments about Hypermill are really interesting.

Hypermill has recognition (for sure) but is not necessarily a great fit for certain applications or ways one would prefer to do things.

For me number One, the idea that training personnel have to visit me to teach me how to use the software is total deal breaker for me. For lack of supporting documentation or training manuals ?

I'm a very good auto-didact but kind thrive more off tutorials and actually DO read the manual. Then later when much time and thought has been made reach out and contact relevant technical folks with a well framed / definitive / useful question. I understand the reason for onsite training as you want to make sure "Peeps" that have invested ARE getting the most out of your software and not mis-using it in weird ways that you later get "Framed for" lol.

SolidCam is hard to beat for "induction" into CNC etc. as their documentation is excellent and access to support and development team (if needed ) is excellent also.

 

[OVodov]

Just to be clear I'm not trying to put SolidCam in higher level above MasterCam.
I would say this 2 programs are on the same level in my opinion.
Since 2017 version Mastercam made a huge leap to become more user friendly than it was before.
I don't know how good is modern SolidCam, I stopped using it when immigrated to Canada,
but back in 2013 SoldCam was much more intuitive.
So if 5x simultaneous is the same in both,
2D Solidcam was much better.
3D was sucks in both, but approximately in the same time SolidCam purchased 3D module from ModuleWorks and named is HSS and MasterCam created their new Surface High Speed (SHS). They still continue to improve this SHS module but I would say it will take long time to bring it finish line.
Dinamic MIll in MasterCam kinda loose to SolidCam iMachining. SolidCam proudly declare that iMachining is the best in its class and even started to sale it to NX CAM.
Feature Recognition in MasterCam is sucks they call it FBM and don't know anybody personally who is using it.
Also can't say anything feature recognition in SolidCam, they introduced it when I already stopped using this software.

 

[cameraman]

Just to be clear I'm not trying to put SolidCam in higher level above MasterCam.
I would say this 2 programs are on the same level in my opinion.
Since 2017 version Mastercam made a huge leap to become more user friendly than it was before.
I don't know how good is modern SolidCam, I stopped using it when immigrated to Canada,
but back in 2013 SoldCam was much more intuitive.
So if 5x simultaneous is the same in both,
2D Solidcam was much better.
3D was sucks in both, but approximately in the same time SolidCam purchased 3D module from ModuleWorks and named is HSS and MasterCam created their new Surface High Speed (SHS). They still continue to improve this SHS module but I would say it will take long time to bring it finish line.
Dinamic MIll in MasterCam kinda loose to SolidCam iMachining. SolidCam proudly declare that iMachining is the best in its class and even started to sale it to NX CAM.
Feature Recognition in MasterCam is sucks they call it FBM and don't know anybody personally who is using it.
Also can't say anything feature recognition in SolidCam, they introduced it when I already stopped using this software.

I'm not pushing or pulling you in any direction,

I think your original intended meaning of what you set out in post #41 seemed to come across pretty well.

What you set out here ^^^ post # 45 seems pretty accurate IMO, (seems to chime with me)... [Some hands on and some - "Impressions" only (from my end).].

Versions of SolidCam I had (older) seemed to be pretty OK with their feature recognition system , maybe it's on steroids since then?

That's my impression of the difference in iMachining with other products - I think SolidCam kinda oversells that a bit but also understand the somewhat (-ish) how that impacts the bottom line.

@OVodov ~ Thanks for setting that out - very helpful / useful to me.

 

[Mike1974]

I will agree that fbm in mastercam does suck, but but but, I've never spent any time trying to set it up. Not any different than sitting down with xxxz software for 10 minutes and saying this sucks

 

[OVodov]

To Mike1974,
I tried to use it.
First - it doesn't support Dynamic Mill, only traditional 2D such a pocket(or old school 3D not new Optirough).
Which is already stopping me from using it.
Dynamic Mill is always way to go for me. Secondary it uses way to many tools than needed.
Sorry if I abused you somehow, once again I'm not saying that MasterCam is sucks. What is really bothers me is bugs in newest
version. I can't say about bugs in Hypermill or NX CAM or any other CAM software, only heard that Fusion has bunch of them as well.

 

[Camputer]

I will agree that fbm in mastercam does suck, but but but, I've never spent any time trying to set it up. Not any different than sitting down with xxxz software for 10 minutes and saying this sucks ��

Yeah, I've got to go with Ovodov here. I don't use fbm in mastercam either and I don't know anyone that does. I'm pretty well versed in a number of different cam softwares and coming from almost any of them these days where stock recognition and automation is standard even on simple 2d toolpaths, switching back to mastercam is a pretty stark transition.

I am a mastercam programmer at heart, there are some things that it is really really good at, and for some programs I wouldn't want to use anything else. (usually for doing really unorthodox stuff that the more automated cams don't want to let you do). But there's also a lot of basic stuff it feels like it's behind the industry on now. And I would not want to use it for what I'm currently doing.

As to the OP, I am currently using Esprit to program all sorts of multiaxis mill turn lathes and I am loving it. The synchronization is really intuitive and malleable and the support I've had from DP so far has been fantastic.

 

[wheelieking71]

That's interesting what @GCoder_05 said about FeatureCAM

I will echo what he said about FeatureCAM's multiple fixture utility. It is fantastic!
More CAM makers need to look in to how FCAM does this.

 

[empower]

Planes in MasterCam are sucks. It's the one of stupidest things I hate the most there.
In every other software you would need one plane, in MC - 3 planes WCS, Tool plane and Compensation plane.
I had experience of 3 years using SolidCam. In this program planes are much easier to use.

Same with hypermill... all that stuff is fucking stupid and useless.

Fusion has 3+2 setup down the best/easiest, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

 

[Camputer]

I will echo what he said about FeatureCAM's multiple fixture utility. It is fantastic!
More CAM makers need to look in to how FCAM does this.

Man, you gotta stop bringing up Featurecam, every time you do I tear up. We finally just left it for dead and it breaks my heart. The tombstone utility was beautiful and it permanently set the standard in my head of what good feature based programming is.

RIP

 

[Mike1974]

I will echo what he said about FeatureCAM's multiple fixture utility. It is fantastic!
More CAM makers need to look in to how FCAM does this.

I;m not sure what is so hard about MCX transform toolpath ops, it is literally a couple button clicks... but I am not familiar with others so....??

I would however like to iterate, what you don't know, you don't know. I'm sure veteran Esprit/NX/etc users could school me on what MCX ca't do, and vice versa... couple examples, when I was using NX (and possibly just cause I didn;t know) there wasn't a chaining feature like MCX? In MCX, you picked the start point (depending on options in your toolpath chain feature) and it automatically selected a full chain, in NX (from what I used) you had to select each entitiy, one by one... However, you could apply different stock to leave options on each individual chain in NX so...? I guess they each have their place...

*I wish I was a bit more computer savvy to record videos of me using MCX to address some of the issues I see repeatedly brought up about how hard MCX is, but alas...

 

[Camputer]

I;m not sure what is so hard about MCX transform toolpath ops, it is literally a couple button clicks... but I am not familiar with others so....??

I would however like to iterate, what you don't know, you don't know. I'm sure veteran Esprit/NX/etc users could school me on what MCX ca't do, and vice versa... couple examples, when I was using NX (and possibly just cause I didn;t know) there wasn't a chaining feature like MCX? In MCX, you picked the start point (depending on options in your toolpath chain feature) and it automatically selected a full chain, in NX (from what I used) you had to select each entitiy, one by one... However, you could apply different stock to leave options on each individual chain in NX so...? I guess they each have their place...

*I wish I was a bit more computer savvy to record videos of me using MCX to address some of the issues I see repeatedly brought up about how hard MCX is, but alas...

Just to let you know the difference, on Featurecam's tombstone utility I could program one part, then launch the utility and load up 4 of the same parts on each of the sides of the tombstone exactly where I wanted. I could then sort all of the operations with a click of a button. I could organize hundreds of toolpaths by tool, or by face, or by feature and simulate it and adjust it right there on the tombstone page.

Now I could do the same thing in Mastercam, and it wouldn't be hard. But it would take me 10x longer and be a lot more tedious. And when you're programming horizontals every day it made a huge difference.

I'm not actually sure if the multiple fixture option Wheelie is talking about is the same thing, it's been years since I programmed a mill in featurecam.

 

[g-coder05]

I'm not actually sure if the multiple fixture option Wheelie is talking about is the same thing, it's been years since I programmed a mill in featurecam.

It is pretty much the same thing. Just drag a file onto the multiple fixture page and FC automatically reconfigured the toolpaths and issued the G54,G55, G56 and so on. You could literally stack them on top of each other and FC knew what you were doing and spit the code out perfectly. Then run the optimizer and it figured in chip thinning, rest machining, tool optimization. FC just knows what you want. Damn AD for killing it off.

And XBuild?!?!?! Post problem? No problem.

 

[wheelieking71]

It is pretty much the same thing. Just drag a file onto the multiple fixture page and FC automatically reconfigured the toolpaths and issued the G54,G55, G56 and so on. You could literally stack them on top of each other and FC knew what you were doing and spit the code out perfectly. Then run the optimizer and it figured in chip thinning, rest machining, tool optimization. FC just knows what you want. Damn AD for killing it off.

And XBuild?!?!?! Post problem? No problem.

Don't forget if you are counting seconds you can also manually order the process to minimize spindle travel. I save huge amounts of time doing this.
That step can be time consuming. But, well worth it on long running stuff. I have saved weeks on jobs just by spending a couple hours reordering the manual fixture doc.

When you have 10 work coordinates across 5 double station vises,
G110,G111,G112,G113,G114
G116,G117,G118,G119,G120
And, 22 tools, and you start adding up every time a 40" mill has to jump from G114 to G116.
Instead of G114 to G120 then going backwards. Across a 10,000pc order, that time adds up HUGE.

I save about 8 seconds on one spot,drill,drill,ream process over one run of 10 parts. Get about 20 runs a day.
That is 8*20*5*52/60=693 hrs/yr. And, that is only 4 of the 22 tools. This is why I love loaded tables!

Getting off topic now (imagine that). But, there is so much more than just the fastest whiz bang machine to being efficient.

FeatureCAM's multiple fixture is probably worth more to me from this standpoint than my Brother R650. Maybe not, but the statement makes the point.

(man, I wish I was better in XBuild!)

 

[mutiny]

I would however like to iterate, what you don't know, you don't know. I'm sure veteran Esprit/NX/etc users could school me on what MCX ca't do, and vice versa... couple examples, when I was using NX (and possibly just cause I didn;t know) there wasn't a chaining feature like MCX? In MCX, you picked the start point (depending on options in your toolpath chain feature) and it automatically selected a full chain, in NX (from what I used) you had to select each entitiy, one by one... However, you could apply different stock to leave options on each individual chain in NX so...? I guess they each have their place...

Tangent about selection in NX...

I've just started using NX but it has immediately become clear that understanding selection is an extremely important part of being productive. The default is what you said, but there are also a dozen other ways of selecting things. There's a filter that may be set to "single edge" by default, but you can change that filter to select edges tangent to an edge, or connecting to an edge, or all edges of a face, etc.

Selection technique has a huge impact on both speed and feature stability as well. For instance, selecting tangent edges of a fillet might disassociate if you later change that filter to a chamfer, but selecting the bounding edges of the top face may be stable.

 

[OVodov]

I;m not sure what is so hard about MCX transform toolpath ops, it is literally a couple button clicks... but I am not familiar with others so....??

I would however like to iterate, what you don't know, you don't know. I'm sure veteran Esprit/NX/etc users could school me on what MCX ca't do, and vice versa... couple examples, when I was using NX (and possibly just cause I didn;t know) there wasn't a chaining feature like MCX? In MCX, you picked the start point (depending on options in your toolpath chain feature) and it automatically selected a full chain, in NX (from what I used) you had to select each entitiy, one by one... However, you could apply different stock to leave options on each individual chain in NX so...? I guess they each have their place...

*I wish I was a bit more computer savvy to record videos of me using MCX to address some of the issues I see repeatedly brought up about how hard MCX is, but alas...

Chaining in X9 is sucks. Try to use chaining in Mastercam 2020 or 2021 and you will see how slow you are now at X9. Also drilling geometry was dramatically improved since.

 

[OVodov]

We stoped paying for maintenance this year. MasterCam left me disappointed. Now I started to look for another software. My choice is between NX CAM and Hypermill. I would consider Catia as well but it’s too expensive.

 

[empower]

We stoped paying for maintenance this year. MasterCam left me disappointed. Now I started to look for another software. My choice is between NX CAM and Hypermill. I would consider Catia as well but it’s too expensive.

do yourself a favor, got NX...
more than unhappy with Hypermill right now.