Geometry based VS featured based(Happy Holidays)

[wheelieking71]

Yupp, that can get pretty darn involved, and FC ( now ADSK ) isn't making it easier!

I understand that Delcam Powermill was an awesome 3D CAM tool.
I also understand that FeatureCAM inherited more and more of Delcam's Powermill tools as time went by.

Unfortunately, ADSK isn't making it easy for their not PowerMill users to get acquainted to the ins and outs.

Wheelie
Yes, I also just plunked down the "maintenance" for FC, but I do hope that sometime ADSK will put out some usable training videos for 3D toolpaths.
2D, I'm more than OK with.
3D OTOH, I'd almost rather decipher and convert a FANUC manual to real English instead!!!

Yea, I paid my maint. again as well. Feel like it was a waste since I haven't updated since 2015, LOL
I am actually going to buy a new PC just to install FC 2019 on and see what it is like. I am betting I hate it, LOL
I just wish they would fix the tool-crib.

 

[wheelieking71]

They will tell you draw/smash the geometry first then offset it then feature it then start to make toolpath, if you realize something not right, start over again..

I am betting you are missing something...............

 

[goooose]

Curious how feature based software deals with this...

Most of the parts I do have unilaterally toleranced features ie an island on top of a boss with a +1mm -0 from two edges. I will offset the geometry in Gibbs to change it to a bilateral +/- .5mm. Stacking unilateral Z offsets are common as well but I imagine those are delt with easily enough.

You could do the exact same thing or you could modify your feature or you could adjust stock values in the toolpath. All three of these options could be automated to one click edits.

 

[goooose]

Hi goooose, Thanks for the reply again.

1. Can you tell me which 5-axis toolpath company they bought and merge their function into ESPRIT? Or it's just a lie from salesmen. ES & MW look pretty similar, for example composite in ES & morph in MW.

2. Sorry I don't agree with "you can do everything you need to", It does lack many functionalities compare to MC. Also for a simple curve you have to smash it first then apporx. it again and then you can start to work on it, I really don't know why they make it so complicated.

3. It does require more work to make toolpath, everytime I got some idea about toolpath, I can't do any extra step to make it, extra step is simply frustrating. For Z value, in Mastercam it's even easier, I don't need to go feature properties to define the value, I just need to input the number, that's it.

4. Based on my experience, I barely use MC's help file, because almost everything has a picture to show you what's the option doing for the toolpath, also ES' help file is very confusing too, I tried the help file, but not helpful at all, only more confused.

5. Still don't understand, Maybe you're talking about something like VBA, it's like find out some value from stock definition or from the model, mostly it works for lathe, but sorry, I'm more on milling side, and also, MC is more convenient on lathe programming, they even has Sandvik prime turning option

6. Sorry I have seen Camwizard's videos from the company I'm working for, I tried it once, but couldn't tolerate "blablabla" for half an hour and spend 5 minutes to make the toolpath. Many Mastercam video tutorials do the same thing, so I never bought any of them. I used to buy some MC books from IHS, they are very straight forward. The ES' website help team is almost useless, everytime I stuck on somewhere and submit the question to them they just told me to do it another way, which I really hate, I want to make the toolpath as I want, not "another way".

7. ES just had their high speed machining "profit milling" and looks very similar to "Votex milling" from powermill, lots of waste toolpath involved, MC has their "dynamic" since 2010, why don't ES just give up on milling and focus on lathe?

Regards.

It sounds more like you just want to argue about Mastercam vs Esprit instead of figuring out how to use Esprit.

1.To my knowledge they had not purchased any other companies to outfit their 5 axis suite. It's all in house development.
2. Tell me what you are trying to do that is not available in Esprit. Smashing, you do the same thing in Mastercam its called create curves.
3. Manually making a feature vs chaining geometry is the exact same thing. If you want to input your own numbers into a tooplath, just type it in. You don't have to use information from the feature.
4. I don't know what to tell ya. As far as Help documents go, theirs is one of the best I've seen.
5. It sounds like you need to sort some other stuff out before worrying about KBM.
6. Camwizard videos are again some of the best you can find for any software. I don't know what to tell you if you don't like watching them. Saying the Esprit help team is useless is showing your complete lack of knowledge and respect.
7. Every company has their own controlled engagement toolpath now. I've found Esprits to be a little smarter than Mastercams as it will not only control engagement but also increase feed when engagement is reduced to further maintain chipload and increase MRR.

 

[tmao]

I am betting you are missing something...............

Hi wheelieking71, sorry if I miss something, at lease this is how it works in ESPRIT...

 

[wheelieking71]

Hi wheelieking71, sorry if I miss something, at lease this is how it works in ESPRIT...

It is how you have figured out to make it (not) work in Esprit.
I'm not familiar with Esprit. But, I know Goooose is. I will take his word over yours, thank you.

You have made a large generalization with your topic title: geometry-based vs. feature-based CAM.
When in reality all you have done is bitch about Esprit, and brag how much you like M-cam.

Have you even used any other "feature based" CAM's? Your topic title should have been M-cam vs. Esprit.
As stated, I use Featurecam every day. The work-flow is not that different from Mastercam.
You are making me want to play around with Esprit to see why you hate it so bad. Just like I hated Featurecam until I figured it out.

 

[tmao]

It is how you have figured out to make it (not) work in Esprit.
I'm not familiar with Esprit. But, I know Goooose is. I will take his word over yours, thank you.

You have made a large generalization with your topic title: geometry-based vs. feature-based CAM.
When in reality all you have done is bitch about Esprit, and brag how much you like M-cam.

Have you even used any other "feature based" CAM's? Your topic title should have been M-cam vs. Esprit.
As stated, I use Featurecam every day. The work-flow is not that different from Mastercam.
You are making me want to play around with Esprit to see why you hate it so bad. Just like I hated Featurecam until I figured it out.

No, it's not just my opinion, it is how ES works.

Maybe I should change the topic to ES VS MC, but this is the first time I touched a "feature based" software, and it's really hard to use. I simply don't understand why need an extra step call "feature" to make the toolpath, and soon you made the "feature", it's almost un-editable. Any change you want to make about single side dimension, you have to adjust the original lines then feature again then copy and paste the toolpath. I don't have any experience on FeatureCAM, if it is different I will apologize.

For simple 2D parts or some 3D involved parts, "feature" way may work, even faster, I didn't deny that, but for complicated part, let's say more than 50-operation parts, it's really a PITA to work on "features", complicated parts you need to adjust your geometry again and again to get some small details, also deal with shitty step files, I believe you also have some similar experience.

So now can you tell me why I need an extra "feature" to make my toolpath? Or maybe this is the only way for them not touching geometry based(MC & GIBBS) patent.

I don't mind to learn a new software, but to me, I want to see the advantage & disadvantage for both. For "geometry based", I never appreciated MC until I start to use "feature based" software. It's way more convenient, way more straight forward, way more direct control on toolpath, but for "feature", can you tell me what's the advantage? Please don't say something like "it's good, you should give it a try."...

Regards.

 

[goooose]

No, it's not just my opinion, it is how ES works.

Maybe I should change the topic to ES VS MC, but this is the first time I touched a "feature based" software, and it's really hard to use. I simply don't understand why need an extra step call "feature" to make the toolpath, and soon you made the "feature", it's almost un-editable. Any change you want to make about single side dimension, you have to adjust the original lines then feature again then copy and paste the toolpath. I don't have any experience on FeatureCAM, if it is different I will apologize.

For simple 2D parts or some 3D involved parts, "feature" way may work, even faster, I didn't deny that, but for complicated part, let's say more than 50-operation parts, it's really a PITA to work on "features", complicated parts you need to adjust your geometry again and again to get some small details, also deal with shitty step files, I believe you also have some similar experience.

So now can you tell me why I need an extra "feature" to make my toolpath? Or maybe this is the only way for them not touching geometry based(MC & GIBBS) patent.

I don't mind to learn a new software, but to me, I want to see the advantage & disadvantage for both. For "geometry based", I never appreciated MC until I start to use "feature based" software. It's way more convenient, way more straight forward, way more direct control on toolpath, but for "feature", can you tell me what's the advantage? Please don't say something like "it's good, you should give it a try."...

Regards.

I'll try and keep this simple for you as it seems you are just struggling with transitioning to a new software.

There is no 'extra' step in creating a feature. A feature (Esprit) and chained geometry (Mastercam) tell the toolpath where it takes place. You have to have a feature in Esprit just like you have to have chained geometry in Mastercam. We can go much deeper here but I don't want to add confusion.
As far as editing of features, this is easily done. No need to create a new, copy paste the toolpath then delete the old. You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam.
Esprit not able to handle 'large' 50 op parts??? I would place a 50 op part on the small side. Believe me, 50 ops is not even scratching the surface on the complexity Esprit can handle. Multi axis, multi turret machines are the norm.

You still haven't given any real examples of what you're struggling with.


...oh, just to add, there is no patent on 'chaining geometry'. I'm not sure who has told you something like this exists

 

[Mike1974]

I'll try and keep this simple for you as it seems you are just struggling with transitioning to a new software.

There is no 'extra' step in creating a feature. A feature (Esprit) and chained geometry (Mastercam) tell the toolpath where it takes place. You have to have a feature in Esprit just like you have to have chained geometry in Mastercam. We can go much deeper here but I don't want to add confusion.
As far as editing of features, this is easily done. No need to create a new, copy paste the toolpath then delete the old. You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam.
Esprit not able to handle 'large' 50 op parts??? I would place a 50 op part on the small side. Believe me, 50 ops is not even scratching the surface on the complexity Esprit can handle. Multi axis, multi turret machines are the norm.

You still haven't given any real examples of what you're struggling with.

I know I am jumping in the middle here, but this "You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam." Is not entirely true (or I am taking it out of context). If you have a chained geo in MCX, you can alter it and regen, and it will regen, as long as you don't delete all the old pieces. For example, say I need to extend a 'leg' on one end then fillet into the next instead of leaving it a sharp corner. I can do that, and it will be fine, similar to going into a feature inside NX, like a c'bored hole, and changing the c'bore depth. It should recognize that fine and update the toolpath in both scenarios.

edit: sorry to interrupt, but it seems the thread is not going well at this point anyhow.

 

[wheelieking71]

I know I am jumping in the middle here, but this "You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam." Is not entirely true (or I am taking it out of context). If you have a chained geo in MCX, you can alter it and regen, and it will regen, as long as you don't delete all the old pieces. For example, say I need to extend a 'leg' on one end then fillet into the next instead of leaving it a sharp corner. I can do that, and it will be fine, similar to going into a feature inside NX, like a c'bored hole, and changing the c'bore depth. It should recognize that fine and update the toolpath in both scenarios.

edit: sorry to interrupt, but it seems the thread is not going well at this point anyhow.

Don't be sorry. You are absolutely correct.
These "feature edits" the OP is having such difficulties with, I would assume are just variable modifications? No?
I can't imagine a guy can't modify feature variables in Esprit.
And, if it is a curve or geometry driven tool-path (which is nothing more than a feature! )?
Re-draw, or modify the geo or curve, and re-select. Is that not how it works Goooose?

 

[goooose]

I know I am jumping in the middle here, but this "You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam." Is not entirely true (or I am taking it out of context). If you have a chained geo in MCX, you can alter it and regen, and it will regen, as long as you don't delete all the old pieces. For example, say I need to extend a 'leg' on one end then fillet into the next instead of leaving it a sharp corner. I can do that, and it will be fine, similar to going into a feature inside NX, like a c'bored hole, and changing the c'bore depth. It should recognize that fine and update the toolpath in both scenarios.

edit: sorry to interrupt, but it seems the thread is not going well at this point anyhow.

I guess I was unclear on what I meant but yes, you are correct. Editing of existing geometry is possible as long as everything remains connected. What I was getting at was editing of an incorrectly chained object or adding to an existing chain.

You can't add a new line into an existing chain in Mastercam (start or end) but you can add to an existing feature in Esprit...we'll I guess I should add EASILY into that.


...couple edits to this post to make sure I'm being completely correct. I guess point being features are editable.

 

[SeymourDumore]

. Editing of existing geometry is possible as long as everything remains connected and entity count does not change. What I was getting at was editing of an incorrectly chained object or adding to an existing chain.

You can't add a new line into an existing chain in Mastercam (start, middle, or end) ....

Tangent!

Man oh man !!!
Do I love FeatureCAM in that regard.
There is no start, no end, no direction, no clipping, no trimming, no moving of start or end.
Nada, Zip, Zilch of that in FC!
You can even delete the entire chain ( curve in FC ).
Even better yet, you can copy/paste a completed feature from another file ( chain, strategy settings and all ), and just re-assign a new curve.

Tangent-Off!

 

[goooose]

Don't be sorry. You are absolutely correct.
These "feature edits" the OP is having such difficulties with, I would assume are just variable modifications? No?
I can't imagine a guy can't modify feature variables in Esprit.
And, if it is a curve or geometry driven tool-path (which is nothing more than a feature! )?
Re-draw, or modify the geo or curve, and re-select. Is that not how it works Goooose?

You're getting at a good point here...Esprits 'feature' and Mastercams 'chain' are basically the same thing. They are geometry that is driving the toolpath. The main difference is in Esprit you apply a toolpath to the geometry (feature) and in Mastercam you apply geometry (chain) to a toolpath. I can expand on the benefits of Esprit in some other thread as this is getting a bit off point.

 

[wheelieking71]

Tangent!

Man oh man !!!
Do I love FeatureCAM in that regard.
There is no start, no end, no direction, no clipping, no trimming, no moving of start or end.
Nada, Zip, Zilch of that in FC!
You can even delete the entire chain ( curve in FC ).
Even better yet, you can copy/paste a completed feature from another file ( chain, strategy settings and all ), and just re-assign a new curve.

Tangent-Off!

Did some of that this morning!
"hey, this is almost exactly how I do that on that other part!"
Open other part, COPY, close other part, PASTE. Select new curve, delete curve that came in with the PASTE, adjust depth, done! 30 seconds.

 

[tmao]

I'll try and keep this simple for you as it seems you are just struggling with transitioning to a new software.

There is no 'extra' step in creating a feature. A feature (Esprit) and chained geometry (Mastercam) tell the toolpath where it takes place. You have to have a feature in Esprit just like you have to have chained geometry in Mastercam. We can go much deeper here but I don't want to add confusion.
As far as editing of features, this is easily done. No need to create a new, copy paste the toolpath then delete the old. You simply open the feature and edit where needed then rebuild the toolpath. I might add you cannot do this to a piece of chained geometry in Mastercam.
Esprit not able to handle 'large' 50 op parts??? I would place a 50 op part on the small side. Believe me, 50 ops is not even scratching the surface on the complexity Esprit can handle. Multi axis, multi turret machines are the norm.

You still haven't given any real examples of what you're struggling with.


...oh, just to add, there is no patent on 'chaining geometry'. I'm not sure who has told you something like this exists

LOL, sounds very easy, but how, for example a rectangular sit on a plane, you want to offset one edge, you go to the feature property and then how you decide what number you're gonna put in? Is there any offset feature button? In Mastercam you just need to go to the plane then offset the line, trim, regenerate, then you have it.

I spent some time to figure out which function ES doesn't have, I'm glad to say I found lots of hidden buttons, but still, ES lacks lost of important functions. For example, averagely curve surface into UV lines, you may get one(curve surface), but that's it, here we use "curve flowline". Also ES completely doesn't have model-modify functions, for example, push-pull model surface, delete model features ect. Which means in order to use ES, you have to have at least one CAD software first.

If like you said, no difference between create "feature" and chaining, why I have to deal with those almost un-editable "features", adding another line is impossible for a defined feature, of course you still can keeping saying no difference. LOL

And, for large '50' parts, are you talking about mould making? Sorry I'm a production guy, barely do mould jobs, for mould, yes I can see "feature" has more advantages, but nothing can beat MC on production programming.

Maybe there is no patent, but at least I know MC sales wouldn't bullshxt something like we ending up with buying that company.. LOL

You keep saying ES is the best, "feature" is the best way, "Camwizard" is the best tutorial, but looks like everything based on your 10 years ago(maybe more) MC experience, where you got such a confidence about saying "the best".

And who says MC can't add another line into existing chaining, there is a button called "rechain". In ES you have to build another feature to add into a group, that's really pathetic.

Talking about multi-axis part, you're welcome to upload a multi-axis model and tell me tool, machine, where you want the toolpath, or I can upload one too if you want. After finishing the toolpath, upload a picture back to the forum, ppl can see. No mill-turn please, I don't have that function in Mastercam learning version.

 

[wheelieking71]

And who says MC can't add another line into existing chaining, there is a button called "rechain". In ES you have to build another feature to add into a group, that's really pathetic.

How hard is Copy~Paste~Delete? It is a whole lot simpler than re-chaining.
Especially considering how much of a convoluted pain in the ass geometry creation is in Mastercam.

 

[tmao]

How hard is Copy~Paste~Delete? It is a whole lot simpler than re-chaining.
Especially considering how much of a convoluted pain in the ass geometry creation is in Mastercam.

Some people lost their creativity so they only can do "copy & paste" all the time, maybe sometimes plus "delete". I guess I found a example here.

 

[SeymourDumore]

Some people lost their creativity so they only can do "copy & paste" all the time, maybe sometimes plus "delete". I guess I found a example here.

You know you're approaching sounding like a stubborn dick right?

Calm down, take a breath....

Now accept the fact that Esprit isn't MC.

Now also accept the fact that not everything is MC.

Now here is the worst part, accept that MC isn't the best in every field. (most certainly not in the chaining department! )

When all that done, start figuring out how the new software you're forced to use works, and when in trouble, ask questions. Even here!

You're still welcome, but let's all keep it that way shall we?

 

[thesidetalker]

Some people lost their creativity so they only can do "copy & paste" all the time, maybe sometimes plus "delete". I guess I found a example here.

That's real retarded.

Copy-paste isn't lacking creativity, it's making money. Saving time.

You gonna reprogram each new part from scratch, entering all the data for every toolpath? Spend 20 hours to make your "boss on a plane?" or whatever the hell?

Or if you have templates, knowledge based machining, etc (or copy paste) you can program similar parts a hell of a lot faster...

But you do you. Leaves plenty for the rest of us to make a dollar.

 

[tmao]

You know you're approaching sounding like a stubborn dick right?

Calm down, take a breath....

Now accept the fact that Esprit isn't MC.

Now also accept the fact that not everything is MC.

Now here is the worst part, accept that MC isn't the best in every field. (most certainly not in the chaining department! )

When all that done, start figuring out how the new software you're forced to use works, and when in trouble, ask questions. Even here!

You're still welcome, but let's all keep it that way shall we?

Thanks, I'm a square head actually..