Mastercam 2022 Released

[Mtndew]

riiight. let me just spend 20 fucking clicks modifying the size or position of a sketch entity i use either for containment or to drive a toolpath instead of 1 or 2 like in any normal cad system. ABSOLUTE FUCKING GARBAGE.

For position, have you used Transform Dynamic?
As for changing size, if it's a simple shape like a circle or arc, Analyze it and then in the analyze window type in the new value that you want it to be.

 

[Mike1974]

For position, have you used Transform Dynamic?
As for changing size, if it's a simple shape like a circle or arc, Analyze it and then in the analyze window type in the new value that you want it to be.

You can also pick multiple (arcs, etc) and use the scale function if you want to change a group of features.

 

[empower]

Are you fucking retarded???
EVERYTHING parametric moves by itself you moron !!!

lemme have some of the shit you're smoking

 

[empower]

For position, have you used Transform Dynamic?
As for changing size, if it's a simple shape like a circle or arc, Analyze it and then in the analyze window type in the new value that you want it to be.

i know dynamic transform very well. it is a FAR cry from having a dimension from one feature to another and being able to double click it/change value.

 

[empower]

You can also pick multiple (arcs, etc) and use the scale function if you want to change a group of features.

i'm not an idiot (at least i'd like to think i'm not). i know that mastercam has ways to edit features. what i'm saying is its not in the same universe as far as ease of use goes compared to using the dimension feature in either solidworks or fusion or NX.

for example: you have a rectangle containment boundary that you want to move or adjust one/two sides of without moving the rest. unless i'm horribly mistaken, i have to translate 1/2 of the sides i want to move, then extend other lines to close the boundary again. am i wrong in this? is there a better way? because that is fucking ridiculous.

 

[Mtndew]

what i'm saying is its not in the same universe as far as ease of use goes compared to using the dimension feature in either solidworks or fusion or NX.

for example: you have a rectangle containment boundary that you want to move or adjust one/two sides of without moving the rest. unless i'm horribly mistaken, i have to translate 1/2 of the sides i want to move, then extend other lines to close the boundary again. am i wrong in this? is there a better way? because that is fucking ridiculous.

Well, to be fair, Solidworks is a design software and should never be compared to Mastercam when it comes that.

As for the rectangle question, there are ways, but not super efficient. Like transform/translate and offset (using Join). These do what you want with the caveat that you have to delete the original lines that you initially chose to translate. At least that's what I'm seeing.

I get what you're saying though because I constantly have to move lines too. Holding left click and dragging the cursor is a time saver when Trimming 2 entities that might help with the clicking.

Have you asked this on the official forums? Maybe there's something that we're both not seeing.

There is also the Stretch feature, but I've not played with that a whole lot.

 

[goooose]

for example: you have a rectangle containment boundary that you want to move or adjust one/two sides of without moving the rest. unless i'm horribly mistaken, i have to translate 1/2 of the sides i want to move, then extend other lines to close the boundary again. am i wrong in this? is there a better way? because that is fucking ridiculous.

Translate-Stretch.
This keeps its associativity with toolpaths/solids as well and no trimming or extending needed. For this scenario, this is no less or no more efficient than parametric. And as I said before, if you really need parametric for Mastercam, just run it in SolidWorks. The addin is included in your license.

 

[empower]

Well, to be fair, Solidworks is a design software and should never be compared to Mastercam when it comes that.

As for the rectangle question, there are ways, but not super efficient. Like transform/translate and offset (using Join). These do what you want with the caveat that you have to delete the original lines that you initially chose to translate. At least that's what I'm seeing.

I get what you're saying though because I constantly have to move lines too. Holding left click and dragging the cursor is a time saver when Trimming 2 entities that might help with the clicking.

Have you asked this on the official forums? Maybe there's something that we're both not seeing.

There is also the Stretch feature, but I've not played with that a whole lot.

well thats kinda my point. cam systems that arent native with cad are junk in this day and age. you could be SOOO much more productive in something like fusion or NX, just simply because of that.
most of the stuff i do requires custom fixturing, jaws etc - so being able to design all that stuff efficiently without leaving the cam program is HUGE!

 

[empower]

Translate-Stretch.
This keeps its associativity with toolpaths/solids as well and no trimming or extending needed. For this scenario, this is no less or no more efficient than parametric. And as I said before, if you really need parametric for Mastercam, just run it in SolidWorks. The addin is included in your license.

thats just one example. for me, parametric is still by far more useful and efficient. i'll be pushing for us to transition to NX, cuz this shit is annoying AF

 

[Mike1974]

i'm not an idiot (at least i'd like to think i'm not). i know that mastercam has ways to edit features. what i'm saying is its not in the same universe as far as ease of use goes compared to using the dimension feature in either solidworks or fusion or NX.

for example: you have a rectangle containment boundary that you want to move or adjust one/two sides of without moving the rest. unless i'm horribly mistaken, i have to translate 1/2 of the sides i want to move, then extend other lines to close the boundary again. am i wrong in this? is there a better way? because that is fucking ridiculous.

I know NX uses something (LOL, don't know what it's called) where you have a dialogue box where you can assign P1 a value, then assign P2-3 etc to use P1 as a 'driver' for the other dims? Is all better cad systems doing similar? I ask because say you have 4 different sized holes, all needing to get bigger/smaller by .015" Would you have to select each dimension and change them? If so, the scale function would be more or less the same. Window select/select single, whatever then click scale.

 

[metalmadness]

thats just one example. for me, parametric is still by far more useful and efficient. i'll be pushing for us to transition to NX, cuz this shit is annoying AF

If drawing containment rectangles in Mastercam is causing you this much grief then I think you got some bigger issues going on. It works differently than say Fusion but it really isn't that difficult a thing to deal with.

 

[empower]

I know NX uses something (LOL, don't know what it's called) where you have a dialogue box where you can assign P1 a value, then assign P2-3 etc to use P1 as a 'driver' for the other dims? Is all better cad systems doing similar? I ask because say you have 4 different sized holes, all needing to get bigger/smaller by .015" Would you have to select each dimension and change them? If so, the scale function would be more or less the same. Window select/select single, whatever then click scale.

yes, you can tie dimensions to one another in NX, hell even in solidworks or fusion.
the more programming i do, the more i understand how important having all your standard CAD functions are to being efficient.

 

[empower]

If drawing containment rectangles in Mastercam is causing you this much grief then I think you got some bigger issues going on. It works differently than say Fusion but it really isn't that difficult a thing to deal with.

i dont think difficult is the right word. more like annoying. just because its SOOO much more intuitive in other systems.

 

[goooose]

If drawing containment rectangles in Mastercam is causing you this much grief then I think you got some bigger issues going on. It works differently than say Fusion but it really isn't that difficult a thing to deal with.

100%. So often you see a complaint about a software and it ends up just being a user issue not a software issue.

 

[empower]

100%. So often you see a complaint about a software and it ends up just being a user issue not a software issue.

how is this a user issue? literally a matter of what the software can or cannot do compared to others.

 

[CAMasochism]

I know NX uses something (LOL, don't know what it's called) where you have a dialogue box where you can assign P1 a value, then assign P2-3 etc to use P1 as a 'driver' for the other dims? Is all better cad systems doing similar? I ask because say you have 4 different sized holes, all needing to get bigger/smaller by .015" Would you have to select each dimension and change them? If so, the scale function would be more or less the same. Window select/select single, whatever then click scale.

We use this function a lot with our parts. It makes it so you can very easily scale entire parts from say 8" in diameter to 10" and it will keep it's profile and relations. Though the new sketcher doesn't play so well for doing this. I keep seeing over and over and over about "design intent" how about design function.

 

[SeymourDumore]

you can assign P1 a value, then assign P2-3 etc to use P1 as a 'driver' for the other dims? Is all better cad systems doing similar? I ask because say you have 4 different sized holes, all needing to get bigger/smaller by .015" .

Pretty much all CAD systems that worth it's salt works that way.
Not only that, but you can have dimensions driven by features from an entirely different part, or by the final assembly even.
And that is EXACTLY why don't want either parametric or integrated ( like MC for Solidworks ) CAM

In FeatureCAM you get a notification if the original solid has changed, but you have the choice to ignore it and keep everything the way it was.
The original source solid remains embedded in the CAM file if you so choose.
With fully integrated tools, I do not believe that is an option.

So unlike high and mighty up there, I prefer to be in control of my CAM file, and have it change only when I tell it to.

 

[empower]

Pretty much all CAD systems that worth it's salt works that way.
Not only that, but you can have dimensions driven by features from an entirely different part, or by the final assembly even.
And that is EXACTLY why don't want either parametric or integrated ( like MC for Solidworks ) CAM

In FeatureCAM you get a notification if the original solid has changed, but you have the choice to ignore it and keep everything the way it was.
The original source solid remains embedded in the CAM file if you so choose.
With fully integrated tools, I do not believe that is an option.

So unlike high and mighty up there, I prefer to be in control of my CAM file, and have it change only when I tell it to.

having the option to change/not change is deff nice, i got no problem with that. clearly people have their own reasons for wanting or needing things one way or another. i'm not trying to come off high and mighty, i certainly am not the end all be all, far from it. for my type of work and my style of programming, parametric is orders of magnitude easier and more efficient, and its very frustrating to not have that ability.

 

[metalmadness]

having the option to change/not change is deff nice, i got no problem with that. clearly people have their own reasons for wanting or needing things one way or another. i'm not trying to come off high and mighty, i certainly am not the end all be all, far from it. for my type of work and my style of programming, parametric is orders of magnitude easier and more efficient, and its very frustrating to not have that ability.

I can understand both viewpoints...parametric WOULD be easier for many applications in the end. I, like Seymour over there, prefer having my CAM decoupled from the CAD parametric data. Which is why I do not import my solidworks history when I open most parts. Sometimes I like having the history but my workflow dictates that if any big changes need to happen, they go into SW again and I reopen the updated model. Annoying? Yes very. This is why NX and Fusion are so good...they combine both CAD and CAM into a unified interface that means toggling back and forth is very easy.

However, most companies are good at one thing - either CAD or CAM. Siemens and ADSK can get away with it because they are massive companies. Very different products between the two but functionally there are many similarities. Mastercam was never a CAD program - the tools are there to assist in CAMming a part.

 

[empower]

I can understand both viewpoints...parametric WOULD be easier for many applications in the end. I, like Seymour over there, prefer having my CAM decoupled from the CAD parametric data. Which is why I do not import my solidworks history when I open most parts. Sometimes I like having the history but my workflow dictates that if any big changes need to happen, they go into SW again and I reopen the updated model. Annoying? Yes very. This is why NX and Fusion are so good...they combine both CAD and CAM into a unified interface that means toggling back and forth is very easy.

However, most companies are good at one thing - either CAD or CAM. Siemens and ADSK can get away with it because they are massive companies. Very different products between the two but functionally there are many similarities. Mastercam was never a CAD program - the tools are there to assist in CAMming a part.

finally someone understands what i mean! i thought i was going crazy here... lol