Autodesk HSM (HSM works), Any negative comments?

[ADFToolmaker]

We are a mold tool shop. Designing with Solidworks and CAM programming with Edgecam. We now want to include lathe and have the option to add the Edgecam module or move to a whole new package. We have felt Edgecam is a handicap for a while now. I've only heard good things about Autodesk HSM, and since we can only "rent" it now, there is no capital cost to get over the line. My question is does anyone have any criticism of Autodesk HSM? I have plenty of negative with Edgecam.

Thanks

Andrew

 

[m98custom1212]

We are a mold tool shop. Designing with Solidworks and CAM programming with Edgecam. We now want to include lathe and have the option to add the Edgecam module or move to a whole new package. We have felt Edgecam is a handicap for a while now. I've only heard good things about Autodesk HSM, and since we can only "rent" it now, there is no capital cost to get over the line. My question is does anyone have any criticism of Autodesk HSM? I have plenty of negative with Edgecam.

Thanks

Andrew

HSMworks/Inventor HSM/Fusion HSM are pretty dissapointing for any lathe work lack of canned cycles is main dissapointment but posts are hit or miss unless you have a HAAS

 

[Diezel]

I like certain things about it, like the 3D milling toolpaths.. but having to know JavaScript to edit the posts pisses me off... lathe is pretty disappointing too... I always have issues with grooving and the polar interpolation for live tooling.

 

[dksoba]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to do turning on it. Love it for milling. My only other CAM experience was MasterCAM, and I much prefer HSMWorks (add on to SolidWorks, I can't say anything about the Inventor version or Fusion 360).

Matt

 

[Comatose]

We turn with HSMworks. It's clunky but it works.

HSMworks is far and away the best 2.5D cam I have used. That's the free version. 3d is hit or miss, the surfacing paths do what they're gonna do, and you have less control than with other programs.

Turning is clunky, turn-mill is so so, 4-5 axis positional is great, 4-5 axis simultaneous is a sad sorry joke.

 

[csharp]

Pretty much the same as others have said.

2.5d, 3D and position milling are its greatest strengths. Turning has had some serious limitations since it was created and they will likely never be addressed.

Out of the 3 products HSMWorks would be my last choice if I were going to use one of the products from autodesk. I just let mine expire do to all the setbacks and delays.

 

[pdexter1210]

Ditto what others have said. We have used HSM daily for a little over a year. It works decent for Haas mills, arguably well for Hass mills once you learn how to edit posts appropriately. When we've tried to get support for modeling anything other than the most basic ops, our support has been non-existent. When we tried to discuss full 4th axis on the mills, it became clear that turning and milling were like walking and chewing gum for some, it's better left to others. We recently bought a muli-axis turning center, and there is no chance that we can continue with HSM for that machine. We'll be upgrading in the next few weeks to a grown-ups CAM software.

 

[dksoba]

We'll be upgrading in the next few weeks to a grown-ups CAM software.

What will this be? For me, having HSMWorks integrated into SolidWorks is a HUGE plus. It allows me to make small changes to parts for my customers or myself. If I didn't need this feature, I could see myself using something else. That something else would have to have adaptive clearing, horizontal, and chamfer tool paths though (I'm talking about the chamfer tool path that will chamfer up to a shoulder without hitting it).

 

[XD341]

It's a great milling CAM. Probably the best in it's price range. If you have big bucks to sped you can do better but it's a massive value for milling.

Turning..I can't say cause I write that code by hand, my work is production turning, so if it takes me a little longer that's ok because I'm running thousands of pcs and the jobs repeat. Plus, I'm pretty quick with finger camming it. But I have messed around with it and it doesn't appear to be at the same level as the milling side.

The simultaneous 4th axis stuff is a soup sandwich, positional is great.

 

[Vancbiker]

My son uses HSMWorks to program my mill when he has some parts to do. Usually the code is a bit funky on lead in/out moves but once in the cut seems to be OK. Might be a post issue or possibly a user issue though.

At the end of the day though I feel it quite a step below NX in ability to make a toolpath that does exactly what you want.

 

[implmex]

Hi ADFToolmaker:
I'm not a big fan either; and I have the benefit of having a business partner who was one of the technical consultants when HSMWorks first came on the market, knows the software extremely well and LOVES it.
I find it very difficult to control whenever I'm doing anything at all out of the ordinary...it has a real mind of its own and needs to be tricked into doing sort of what you want as soon as you exceed its comfort zone in any way.

Even simple things like where to start a contour milling operation...you can fight forever to start where you want it to instead of where it wants to, and if you don't trick it just right...it'll break your heart when it whistles down totally unexpectedly and wipes out a feature on your part because you forgot to hide your stock model when you checked the toolpath
It'll do such weird shit sometimes that I've learned NEVER to run a toolpath that hasn't been checked every which way till Sunday, and this is super simple stuff like cutting a runner and gates in a mold.

The other great weakness is also one of its great strengths...it's associativity with the CAD program.
The number of times I have to re-generate all the toolpaths because I've done something really simple in the CAD side is a continual annoyance, and when you've got lots of adaptive toolpaths with small stepovers consuming a squillion lines of code, it wastes an enormous amount of time.
Add a sketch to control a toolpath...the previous operations and toolpaths are all fucked up.
Open a feature to recall what you did to it...your operations and toolpaths are all fucked up again.
Add a configuration to a model in a totally different job setup...you guessed it.

If you do very conventional stuff and are free to not care how it goes about it, it will make good, if huge amounts of code and you'll get your parts.

If you do a lot of 3D surfacing, the adaptive roughing is super useful and well worth the other nuisances once you learn the stupid way you have to define your tool boundaries.

If you can tolerate a lot of screwing around to get the surfacing toolpath you want and are willing to invest what it takes to get really good at it, it'll make very good parts; nicer than I was able to do with MasterCam.

I've watched Keith using it for 2 1/2 years now and there isn't anything he can't make with it; but Holy Crap, the time and dicking around it sometimes takes is mind blowing and he's an expert user.
Sometimes I just throw up my hands and go back to my Mastercrap.

Turning on the other hand, is just shit; all those who have nothing good to say about HSMWorks and turning are right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers

Marcus
Implant Mechanix • Design & Innovation > HOME
www.vancouverwireedm.com

 

[ADFToolmaker]

Thanks for all your comments guys. Really helpful, makes me less of a pushover when I talk to the agents this week. On the plus side though it sounds like our agents a good with support, and we need four posts working asap.

 

[csharp]

Thanks for all your comments guys. Really helpful, makes me less of a pushover when I talk to the agents this week. On the plus side though it sounds like our agents a good with support, and we need four posts working asap.

If you are looking at HSMWorks specifically for turning I would make sure you are prepared to make them answer some serious questions about its ability to handle your work. Make them program your part with your manufacturing process.

The below list is not be critical of the product, but being aware of some of the limitations will better prepare you for any demo or interaction with the reseller.
Topics they should address with you.

1. There are no tangential extensions. May not sound like a big deal but prevents you from leading off onto grind stock and things like that. You can create sketches but it is really a work around.
2. Spun profile and spun body are not associative to the model. This really defeats the purpose of having integrated cam.
3. You can't define many of the tools needed for turning. The tool library is limited.+
4. Confinement is kind of a black hole. It is a great concept and looks good in demos but no one can really explain why it machines past the confinement at times. There seems to be little interest in fixing it. This is also some what of an issue in heights. Some times you have to cheat it by the tool nose to get it to work.
5. Heights tabs in HSMWorks have never been updated to work like the do in Fusion and Inventor. They were refined and work a little better.
6. Radial roughing cuts(facing) is difficult compared to axial roughing and lead in and out can't really be controlled
7. Facing operations don't even look at the stock, you have to manually calculate the number of step-overs. If you change the setup stock you must remember to manually adjust your facing cuts.


Some of these issues have been addressed in the Fusion/InventorHSM products but have never made their way back to the HSMWorks and frankly I don't really see it happening.

 

[alphonso]

No experience with HSM, twenty seven years with Pathtrace/Edgcam turning and 4axis milling. Posts for Fanuc controls pretty much bullet proof. Other controls, not so much.

Ancient GE 1050HL control: post worked with some serious tweaking of template and use of code generator(not code wizard).

Anilam 1200T control: post has 2 issues that are unresolved(by Edgecam), requiring manual editing of each program to make them usable.

Fagor 8055T control: post has 1 issue that requires manual editing of programs to make them usable. Still working on that.

All of the posts I have made are based on a Fanuc template(Author: Simon Nee, 1996) that has been modified for the other controls.

 

[rlockwood]

If you're driving a product design through Solidworks and intend to control the process through CNC manufacturing, it still has massive benefits over external CAM systems, as well as the other integrated packages. Every CAM system has areas of focus, and plenty of the previous posts have pointed to the things HSMWorks doesn't excel at. If you have older machine tools with low memory or poor lookahead performance, it might not be a good fit. Turning is not a strong point, and is often incapable of producing desired results on anything outside of a basic monolithic part. It's getting better, glacially, in the Autodesk products.. yet those improvements aren't making their way into the HSMWorks product.

But if your company is in control of the CAD, and especially if it's not finalized or is likely to go through iterations, or if the manufacturing process is likely to feed back into the product/CAD, then some kind of integrated CAD/CAM is probably of immense value. If your CAD package happens to be Solidworks or Inventor, it's probably the best choice.

 

[csharp]

If you're driving a product design through Solidworks and intend to control the process through CNC manufacturing, it still has massive benefits over external CAM systems, as well as the other integrated packages. Every CAM system has areas of focus, and plenty of the previous posts have pointed to the things HSMWorks doesn't excel at. If you have older machine tools with low memory or poor lookahead performance, it might not be a good fit. Turning is not a strong point, and is often incapable of producing desired results on anything outside of a basic monolithic part. It's getting better, glacially, in the Autodesk products.. yet those improvements aren't making their way into the HSMWorks product.

But if your company is in control of the CAD, and especially if it's not finalized or is likely to go through iterations, or if the manufacturing process is likely to feed back into the product/CAD, then some kind of integrated CAD/CAM is probably of immense value. If your CAD package happens to be Solidworks or Inventor, it's probably the best choice.

Rob,
I do respect your opinion but the OP specifically mentions the need for turning. Is that your position? that HSMWorks inside Solidworks for someone needing turning is the "best choice". It may provide excellent value as an overall product but if it can't do what you need it is really of zero value.

Sometimes you may have to suffer with a poorer UI/UX with a product that produces the results required to drive your machines.

The list I made was just because I got tired of typing, could easily and

No angle grooves
Partoff still broke
Can't machine back to front
Control of "allow grooving" sucks
etc....

 

[Shawnrs]

What is so negative about edgecam? I use to use it years ago at one of my other companies and it was real solid.

 

[rlockwood]

Rob,
I do respect your opinion but the OP specifically mentions the need for turning. Is that your position? that HSMWorks inside Solidworks for someone needing turning is the "best choice". It may provide excellent value as an overall product but if it can't do what you need it is really of zero value.

Sometimes you may have to suffer with a poorer UI/UX with a product that produces the results required to drive your machines.

The list I made was just because I got tired of typing, could easily and

No angle grooves
Partoff still broke
Can't machine back to front
Control of "allow grooving" sucks
etc....

It depends on his turning requirements more than anything else. Tons of stuff is wrong with HSMWorks turning for sure, but it's also capable of handling tons of turning work. It's a similar discussion to conversational; There isn't a conversational control that could even scratch the surface of the majority of my milling work, but yet it's a good solution for a ton of other shops because it fits their work well. Similarly, while HSMWorks certainly hasn't met your needs for turning, it's been 90% capable of doing everything I've asked. Turning represents a tiny portion of what we do, but does include work on a few basic swisses and a dual spindle, dual head turning center. It hasn't been ideal for any of those tasks, but it's integration to the product flow (and, hugely, my intimacy with the software) has made it an OK tradeoff, such that I basically never wander into NX's turning environment, even though it's vastly more capable. Turning represents a very small portion of what we do. I certainly wouldn't recommend HSMWorks turning to a new user with the above requirements, and I hope it never comes off that way.. But there are certainly sectors with parts that run across turning centers, where the turning is used for a few crucial revolved features and are supplemented by heavy milling, and I do think HSMWorks excels at those parts.

But I blatantly stated that HSMWorks turning "is often incapable of producing desired results on anything outside of a basic monolithic part." - but without knowing the OP's actual requirements, I have no idea whether that fits him or not. I stand by every statement in my original post, but there are a few layers of "IF's" and some "probably's" built into it, and not by accident.

 

[Motorsports-X]

my limited experience with fusion has been nothing but a lag fest.. ill forever be coughing up the money for mastercam...until i can afford NX

 

[John Welden]

It depends on his turning requirements more than anything else. Tons of stuff is wrong with HSMWorks turning for sure, but it's also capable of handling tons of turning work. It's a similar discussion to conversational; There isn't a conversational control that could even scratch the surface of the majority of my milling work, but yet it's a good solution for a ton of other shops because it fits their work well. Similarly, while HSMWorks certainly hasn't met your needs for turning, it's been 90% capable of doing everything I've asked. Turning represents a tiny portion of what we do, but does include work on a few basic swisses and a dual spindle, dual head turning center. It hasn't been ideal for any of those tasks, but it's integration to the product flow (and, hugely, my intimacy with the software) has made it an OK tradeoff, such that I basically never wander into NX's turning environment, even though it's vastly more capable. Turning represents a very small portion of what we do. I certainly wouldn't recommend HSMWorks turning to a new user with the above requirements, and I hope it never comes off that way.. But there are certainly sectors with parts that run across turning centers, where the turning is used for a few crucial revolved features and are supplemented by heavy milling, and I do think HSMWorks excels at those parts.

But I blatantly stated that HSMWorks turning "is often incapable of producing desired results on anything outside of a basic monolithic part." - but without knowing the OP's actual requirements, I have no idea whether that fits him or not. I stand by every statement in my original post, but there are a few layers of "IF's" and some "probably's" built into it, and not by accident.

No, you pretty much said HSMworks turning is the best and all other CAM software sucks.