Hypermill vs. Mastercam/others as 5-axis solutions
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default Hypermill vs. Mastercam/others as 5-axis solutions

    Hello,

    I had a long meeting with a HyperMILL salesperson today. It went well, and I would really like to see what others think of HyperMILL and how it relates to other popular software solutions like Mastercam. For the sake of this argument I am not considering other options that utilize the same ModuleWorks 5-axis toolpath engines.

    My main problem is that Mastercam is extremely complex when it comes to 5-axis. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just find that it takes damn near forever to get it to do what I want as a user. My understanding is that HyperMILL is using proprietary software that basically blows away the competition when it comes to 5-axis applications. Is this true?

    If the jump from Mastercam to HyperMILL isn't going to deliver that much process improvement then it obviously isn't worth it. What I would love is for a software to intuitively create good toolpaths without having to sit there for ages just to get the collision control strategies just right. Is that possible with HyperMILL? I feel pretty good about using Mastercam Multiaxis, but I am not a Mastercam wizard or anything like that. I can make good toolpaths and create good parts though, both 3+2 and simultaneous.

    Should I just work harder on getting good at Mastercam Multiaxis? Is the learning curve for HyperMILL huge?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,209
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    924
    Likes (Received)
    539

    Default

    Coming from a mastercam background I feel your pain. They muddle up the interface on every release by moving things around and changing the tool path drop down for no apparent reason. Their idea of the yearly maintenance is pushing the backwards-incompatibility ball forward and confusing the user without on iota of improvement.
    everyone else, makes real improvements.
    Hypermill looks great and the kinematic awareness in the post processing is very confidence inspiring for 5 axis compared to Mastercrash. Still not at the confidence level I wish I had but seems very promising. Simple user interface for post changes instead of trying to learn a wonky post text language in MC.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Sound like you are regurgitating a lot of the buzz words the salesman spewed at you. 'Moduleworks = bad' 'Mastercam = complicated' 'our software = best'

    The moduleworks toolpaths are some of the best out there. Thats why companies use them. Also, keep in mind, this is another salesman tactic, not all cam companies that use Moduleworks toolpaths give access to all the available MW toolpaths. Oh, and Mastercam has their own toolpaths as well as MW toolpaths. Its not all MW paths in Mastercam (another common misinformation salesman will not clarify)

    Getting past that, 5X IS complicated. Doesn't matter how you want to slice that up. There's no getting around the fact there's just more going on in the toolpath so you should want the ability to have control over those things, which means more inputs and options. You can leave all the settings to Default or Automatic, ya thats nice and easy but you are then at the mercy of the software making decisions for you. For newbs, that might work. The rest of us want to ability to control the toolpath.

    There are lots of high end packages out there and reasons why you may pick one over the other. Stating that Mastercam is more complicated, or not updated, or that it is the only one using a post language to derive gcode...its all just sour grapes. Sounds like you have more research to do both in software demos, employee feedback, extra costs, etc.

  4. Likes empwoer, Mtndew, bryan_machine, jeffj liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goooose View Post
    Sound like you are regurgitating a lot of the buzz words the salesman spewed at you. 'Moduleworks = bad' 'Mastercam = complicated' 'our software = best'

    The moduleworks toolpaths are some of the best out there. Thats why companies use them. Also, keep in mind, this is another salesman tactic, not all cam companies that use Moduleworks toolpaths give access to all the available MW toolpaths. Oh, and Mastercam has their own toolpaths as well as MW toolpaths. Its not all MW paths in Mastercam (another common misinformation salesman will not clarify)

    Getting past that, 5X IS complicated. Doesn't matter how you want to slice that up. There's no getting around the fact there's just more going on in the toolpath so you should want the ability to have control over those things, which means more inputs and options. You can leave all the settings to Default or Automatic, ya thats nice and easy but you are then at the mercy of the software making decisions for you. For newbs, that might work. The rest of us want to ability to control the toolpath.

    There are lots of high end packages out there and reasons why you may pick one over the other. Stating that Mastercam is more complicated, or not updated, or that it is the only one using a post language to derive gcode...its all just sour grapes. Sounds like you have more research to do both in software demos, employee feedback, extra costs, etc.
    I’m not really using buzzwords, I’m stating facts. Mastercam uses MW engines and so do many other CAM companies. Obviously those engines are good. I know they are good because I use them a lot. I actually like the control, I sometimes just wish it was less control if that makes sense, less room for obfuscation. Do I really need 4 avoidance strategies? Not usually. 2 is good for us. The strategies are good once you know them, but it takes a long ass time to get good at them. Personally I think Mastercam’s in-house 5 axis paths are shit and I prefer MW for something like Swarf. Their 3D in house paths are grand. I love them.

    I would like for them to update the way their posts work…as in, written in an easier manner to go in and work on them. I’ve read thru the MP-post documentation and it was all written…when, like 10 years ago with the X series release? We aren’t even on X anymore so….Give me some new post info please. I’ve also read extensively the MW Help file and enjoy reading the nitty gritty documentation Mcam supplies.

    If you want some light reading go read the Wikipedia article on Geodesic. Some solid insight into how those toolpaths work.

    I also never said mastercam isnt “up to date”. You’re just pulling crap out of thin air as if I said it in my post, which I didn’t. In fact if you read my post history you’ll find I’m a huge mastercam apologist for anyone who tries to shit on their software. I find mastercam to be the most well rounded CAM package out there for most things. I’m particularly excited to try out the “unified” tool path that is coming in the 2022 release this month.

    HOWEVER this thread isn’t about most things, it is specifically about 3+2 and simultaneous 5 axis CAM packages, and Hypermill happens to be highly rated for that. I’m fully aware that most things hypermill can do, mastercam can also do. I want to know if hypermill is easier to reach the end goal, and it seems like it is.

    For what it’s worth I program with Mastercam daily for 8 years and use Vericut for simulation so it isn’t like I’m a newb with no idea what I am talking about and just using “buzz words”. For what it’s also worth, I would be keeping Mastercam and merely adding Hypermill for the 5 axis capabilities if that makes sense

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    I also never said mastercam isnt “up to date”. You’re just pulling crap out of thin air
    The 2nd post in the thread. I never said that you said this. I just included it in the sentence, figured it would be obvious since it was the post above mine.

    I'm not about to start bickering about switches in Mastercam and what someone sees as easier, but the 4 avoidance, there's a reason 2 are hidden in a sub menu. You don't have to use them unless you need the extra control, heck you don't even need to use 1 if you don't want to. As mentioned, if you want more control over your toolpath, there simply has to be more inputs.

  7. Likes motox2121 liked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default

    I don’t necessarily agree that their annual updates don’t add new features and real improvements. I’ve really thought since 2017 release that they have gotten better and better each year. What I don’t understand is how a hyped up toolpath like 5 axis deburr doesn’t support chamfer tools. What the hell is that?

    I’ll say I’ve had the hardest time with stability with 2021 than any previous release. Crashing multiple times a week and the dreaded “unknown error” when running simulation.

    Some of the refinements have been big and some small. Optirough is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I hardly even use the “old style” 3D finishing paths much unless it really calls for it. I’m in the camp that feels the 2017-onward interface is far better than before, especially if you customize it. Still good software, just wondering whether some competitors have found a better way to skin the cat.

    I have heard Powermill is quite good at 5 axis but not sure. It’s definitely cheaper than hypermill

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Adding a second cam to a shop adds a lot of complexities. More to it than just writing a check. You need to think about post differences, training, to name but a few.

    Esprit, NX, Hypermill, you should be checking them all out with live demos and trials. Powermill, I would advise caution as many others have already been burnt by AD and their move to make everything Fusion.

  10. Likes Qwan liked this post
  11. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    457
    Likes (Received)
    2231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goooose View Post
    Powermill, I would advise caution as many others have already been burnt by AD and their move to make everything Fusion.
    This!!!

    If ADSK is treating Powermill the same ( or even remotely similar ) way as they treat FeatureCAM, then be very very careful.
    First off, it's a rent-A-software.
    Second, if they are raping Powermill the same way they rape FC to benefit Fusion, then the end result will likely be a Fusion-only solution but without the ability to
    load and natively use your old Powermill files. Ergo: Any change will require a Square 1 restart.

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    I invested in Camworks full simultaneous 5 axis milling package - using the moduleworks engine. I have found the algorithms powerful but it does seem like the path it takes to get to a near perfect toolpath can be quite long depending on the scenario. I feel like I have to spend way more time than I should getting everything just right. I can get 90% of the way there quickly, but tweaking things in to be perfect often take some working around to accomplish it seems.

    I am looking into hypermill myself as well. I have talked to some people who say the workflow / time savings there will pay for itself quickly if you do a lot of simultaneous work.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1987
    Likes (Received)
    649

    Default

    if you're looking for EASY 5 axis programming, you're gonna be looking for a VERY long time.

    i've done it in mastercam as well as hypermill, and i wouldnt call one easier than the other, they're different. both are very powerful, the big leg up that hypermill has is collision avoidance, but its not simple by any means. the roughing toolpaths are years behind mastercam dynamic roughing. has very powerful surfacing tools and barrel tool paths are very good. the other issue is hypermill code filtering options are nowhere near mastercam.

    that said, the workflow between mastercam and hypermill is very similar, you have your layers, frames (construction/tool planes in mastercam) and even the toolpath tree is eerily similar between the 2. if you're looking for something different, EXTREMELY powerful, and incredible CAD also - go NX all the way.

  14. Likes motox2121 liked this post
  15. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    EnRoute is quite possibly the easiest to understand and least demanding CAM programming to learn. It additionally offers a total assembling bundle. With EnRoute, you can utilize a huge number of apparatuses including switch, blade frameworks, plasma cutters, waterjet cutters, and lasers.

  16. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,987
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5642
    Likes (Received)
    3813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    I sometimes just wish it was less control if that makes sense, less room for obfuscation. Do I really need 4 avoidance strategies? Not usually. 2 is good for us. The strategies are good once you know them, but it takes a long ass time to get good at them.
    Mastercam gives too much control that can be overwhelming in multiaxis paths, I agree,but at least the control is there if you need it.
    But have you changed your operation defaults to have it show what you want? This can be a big timesaver.
    I use the 3+2 stuff pretty much daily and now I can practically do it blind with all of the planes and whatnot. The simultaneous stuff I don't have much experience with so that's still a little confusing to me.

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1987
    Likes (Received)
    649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtndew View Post
    Mastercam gives too much control that can be overwhelming in multiaxis paths, I agree,but at least the control is there if you need it.
    But have you changed your operation defaults to have it show what you want? This can be a big timesaver.
    I use the 3+2 stuff pretty much daily and now I can practically do it blind with all of the planes and whatnot. The simultaneous stuff I don't have much experience with so that's still a little confusing to me.
    the best way i can explain simultaneous toolpaths is - try to visualize how you want the tool to move across the part, then come up with the driving geometry that will make it do what you want. guide curves, to/from point etc.

  18. Likes motox2121 liked this post
  19. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by empwoer View Post
    the best way i can explain simultaneous toolpaths is - try to visualize how you want the tool to move across the part, then come up with the driving geometry that will make it do what you want. guide curves, to/from point etc.
    Have you had any good luck getting clean toolpaths using tilt relative to cutting direction? It looks great in simulation for me, but I get some wierd jerky motion when I post it out to my machine. Tilt through curve usually gives me a nice smooth path.

    I have not used to / from point much.

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    809
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    222
    Likes (Received)
    593

    Default

    FWIW, I agree that MCAM to hyperMILL is a really easy transition. At first I hated hyperMILL because it felt like I was going back to MCAM, which I never really cared for. Once things fell into place however, it is certainly my favorite of the half a dozen CAM platforms I have actually made chips with. As you are alluding to, where hyperMILL shines is ease-of-use for 5 axis strategies. There are definitely some things that hyperMILL can do, which MCAM cannot, but most of the time it's just the fact that hyperMILL makes it a lot easier. Also, if you build out the libraries and have a solid workflow, it is definitely much faster than MCAM for complex parts.


    Ultimately I do think that part of the appeal is that hyperMILL used to have a massive lead on other CAM systems when it came to creating good quality five axis toolpaths and code. Others are catching up though, so for many applications it's really just a matter of personal preference. As much as I like hyperMILL, I wouldn't use it if our needs were more geared towards 3+2 or simple parts. If most of your work can be programmed in an afternoon, it's probably worth picking a less powerful software that crunches through simple brackets and ribs more quickly. If you need to machine a 250lb aluminum bull on a Hermle, or a basketball net on GROB - well, hyperMILL is still the leader in those really complex five axis situations.


    My final thoughts are about the cost of transition. You need to decide if it really makes sense for you to change software from a productivity standpoint. Does it really make sense to spend the cash on the software, training, ramp up time, etc... for your environment? If the MCAM solution does 90% of what you want, it might not make sense to change it up. I worked in a shop where we were stuck with Esprit, MCAM, and hyperMILL because each had strengths that we didn't want to loose, and several of the programmers refused to switch. From a productivity standpoint, it would have been best for that shop if a tyrant came in and just forced us all to use Esprit (since hyperMILL can't really program millturns).

  21. Likes CBlair, empwoer liked this post
  22. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    360
    Likes (Received)
    855

    Default

    Have all the salesmen demo how you put a feature into a part on an angle. Full 5-axis is sexy, but the nitty gritty workflow that tends to suck is getting tool/work plane orientation set for different toolpaths. I never demoed Hypermill (I had my reasons I won't rehash here) but MC you had to define planes then put toolpaths in them. Same with Powermill, with the exception that the hole/feature recognition could be used to semi-automate the process. Fusion, you just click a Z-axis on a feature in the toolpath and you're done. Esprit I never looked at their 5-axis, as this was before the new gen and the mill/turn software was very dated and the workflow didn't make a lot of sense. I've heard it is worlds better in the new interface and all the apps guys around here seem to love it. On the mill/turn side it was pretty easy to set up toolpaths in the correct orientation.

    We also have very good local support for applications on the Autodesk side of things. Lots of guys don't like them, and that's fine. See if Hypermill has a faster workflow for getting toolpaths on parts than MC and go from there. Make them SHOW you.

  23. Likes empwoer liked this post
  24. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    6,298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2499
    Likes (Received)
    3112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Finsta View Post
    Have all the salesmen demo how you put a feature into a part on an angle. Full 5-axis is sexy, but the nitty gritty workflow that tends to suck is getting tool/work plane orientation set for different toolpaths. I never demoed Hypermill (I had my reasons I won't rehash here) but MC you had to define planes then put toolpaths in them. Same with Powermill, with the exception that the hole/feature recognition could be used to semi-automate the process. Fusion, you just click a Z-axis on a feature in the toolpath and you're done. Esprit I never looked at their 5-axis, as this was before the new gen and the mill/turn software was very dated and the workflow didn't make a lot of sense. I've heard it is worlds better in the new interface and all the apps guys around here seem to love it. On the mill/turn side it was pretty easy to set up toolpaths in the correct orientation.

    We also have very good local support for applications on the Autodesk side of things. Lots of guys don't like them, and that's fine. See if Hypermill has a faster workflow for getting toolpaths on parts than MC and go from there. Make them SHOW you.
    DWO takes care of that. But, yes, setting planes could be tricky if you aren't familiar with the software intimately. I think MCAM 2021 lets you select a feature and it *might* take care of proper plane. No longer program 5 axis so I can't say for sure, but the parameter popup makes me think it does.

  25. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1974 View Post
    DWO takes care of that. But, yes, setting planes could be tricky if you aren't familiar with the software intimately. I think MCAM 2021 lets you select a feature and it *might* take care of proper plane. No longer program 5 axis so I can't say for sure, but the parameter popup makes me think it does.
    The plane setup not being automated for me, its a small annoyance. I usually take the 5 minutes at the beginning of a program to setup all my planes levels and viewsheets. Automating that would be nice but it isn't a deal breaker.

    In MCAM i believe no matter what you are still gonna have to tell the software that your T/C planes are different than your WCS

  26. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    109
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Finsta View Post
    MC you had to define planes then put toolpaths in them. Fusion, you just click a Z-axis on a feature in the toolpath and you're done.
    How is this any different? They both work the same way.
    Are you claiming that creating a plane in Mastercam is difficult or something? It literally is 3 mouse clicks, click gnomon, click solid face, click ok, done.

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    In MCAM i believe no matter what you are still gonna have to tell the software that your T/C planes are different than your WCS
    There are already toolpaths that will create planes on their own in Mastercam for 3+2 machining. Although, I doubt the software will ever develop ESP to the point of knowing what angle you want to attack a part from for all operations.

  27. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1987
    Likes (Received)
    649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motox2121 View Post
    Have you had any good luck getting clean toolpaths using tilt relative to cutting direction? It looks great in simulation for me, but I get some wierd jerky motion when I post it out to my machine. Tilt through curve usually gives me a nice smooth path.

    I have not used to / from point much.
    thats more of what your code looks like, even point spacing etc.
    to find jerky motion, see if you can turn on tool axis display in the toolpath and see any reversals in machine motion. a lot of times you can smooth those out by changing tolerance and filter settings.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •