MAZATROL MILLING VS DOOSAN EZ GUIDE vs Dmg Capps - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default

    It really comes down to what your making of course. If your not doing anything with 3d shapes or 5 axis stuff I haven't come across anything I couldn't program in mazatrol be it anything to do with drilling, tapping, thread milling, milling faces, milling o.d or i.d features to name a few. If however your doing any sort of 3d milling or complex shapes absolutely mazatrol is useless for that sort of stuff and you would be better off buying a different brand of machine because imo if your not buying a mazak to use mazatrol you might as well save some money and buy a higher spec machine for the same or less money then a mazak.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3729
    Likes (Received)
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    It really comes down to what your making of course. If your not doing anything with 3d shapes or 5 axis stuff I haven't come across anything I couldn't program in mazatrol be it anything to do with drilling, tapping, thread milling, milling faces, milling o.d or i.d features to name a few. If however your doing any sort of 3d milling or complex shapes absolutely mazatrol is useless for that sort of stuff and you would be better off buying a different brand of machine because imo if your not buying a mazak to use mazatrol you might as well save some money and buy a higher spec machine for the same or less money then a mazak.
    Unless you are buying an Integrex B axis mill turn ;-)

  3. Likes HDFanboy liked this post
  4. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    2691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    It really comes down to what your making of course. If your not doing anything with 3d shapes or 5 axis stuff I haven't come across anything I couldn't program in mazatrol be it anything to do with drilling, tapping, thread milling, milling faces, milling o.d or i.d features to name a few. If however your doing any sort of 3d milling or complex shapes absolutely mazatrol is useless for that sort of stuff and you would be better off buying a different brand of machine because imo if your not buying a mazak to use mazatrol you might as well save some money and buy a higher spec machine for the same or less money then a mazak.
    And what would you call a higher spec than Mazak? Especially which one do you think is higher spec, for less money? Mazak is top tier, regardless of whether it has Mazatrol or not.

  5. Likes HDFanboy liked this post
  6. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,980
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    794
    Likes (Received)
    2426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gixxergary View Post
    Invest in software huh? Didnt read my post I guess. Thanks for the input on a bridgeport though. Moving on.
    He ignored your demand because it's a stupid one.

    Conversational controls are dead (at least on mills) because this isn't 1990 anymore where a CAD/CAM seat was a $30k investment. A $600 laptop and a damn near free seat of Fusion means everyone on the shop floor can have access to fully capable, high-quality CAD/CAM.

    You're stuck training everyone on the conversational, why not just let them loose on YouTube where they can learn from thousands of hours of high-quality training, and an environment where Google can answer any questions in 2 minutes? By contrast, videos tutorials and user forums for conversational controls basically don't exist.

    On top of that, a 1 or 2 of your guys might take some initiative and get really good with this package, so now you'll be able to offload some of the simpler jobs from your programmers, and might even wind up with a home grown programmer of your own. At the very least, folks in the shop would probably take more to a genuine skill building opportunity instead of wasting their time gaining skills with a very specific conversational control that will likely add very little to their personal toolbox.

    You complain about a lack of ability to find talent, but you blow off an opportunity to grow your own employee base's skill set to actually meet your needs... Why?

  7. Likes Vancbiker, litlerob1, Mtndew liked this post
  8. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default

    Something along the lines of dmg I guess. Donít get me wrong mazak is very high end and I donít want to run anything else but their prices are higher then other similarly specd high end machines.

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,061
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    908
    Likes (Received)
    2732

    Default

    I'll add that getting into conversational controls can be a drag if you end up with versions from a couple or more different builders. Programming things like softjaws on one machine this run and then having to re-program the next time the job comes through but has to run on a different workcenter wastes time.

    Using a CAM software to program the "quickie" shop floor jobs keeps everyone on the same page and can port across builders much more easily.

  10. Likes HDFanboy, bryan_machine liked this post
  11. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    136
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    Mazatrol milling is kick ass for 2.5D parts, programmed at the machine.

    Sure, there can be limitations in what you can do, but for face milling, side milling, slot milling, all types of hole operations, etc., once you learn it, it's plenty fast and powerful.

    As with most conversational controls, you pick the process you want to perform, input your tools and their respective cutting parameters (Mazatrol will automatically input suggested tools and feeds/speeds --- you can add or delete as you want), then just input your geometry.

    You can easily create any 2.5D geometric shape you want. Pockets of square, round, or irregular shapes are easy...even pockets with islands in the middle.

    Mazatrol milling is more complex than mazatrol turning, but that is because milling is more complex than turning!

    Mazatrol always offers the "manual process unit" for stuff you just can't get the mazatrol units to do. Manual process is basically a fill-in-the-blank g-code unit, looks kinda like a simple spreadsheet.

    I love my Mazak mill and the ease of programming fixtures, vice jaws, and little jobs right at the machine.

    Editing feeds/speeds/doc and geometry is stupid easy.

    Cutter comp is automatic, you don't have to think about it. Just go into the Tool Data page and give the tool a different diameter, then viola, your geometry cut by that tool is modified accordingly! No approach/retract bullshit, or turning the g-code on or off...it's automatic, use it if you want, and if not, you don't have to.

    And repeating programs at a different work offset --- for multiple parts and/or fixtures, is just simple to do.

    My 2 cents anyway,

    ToolCat

    In my opinion as far as the programming goes, I feel you can replace "mazatrol" with Hurco from what ToolCat said.

    At our shop we have 2 Hurco mills (VM2 and VM20i) and a Hurco lathe. I have barely ran a Haas, but I would probably say the iron is about as good as a Haas. Our Hurco's have been relatively low maintenance too.

    We also just picked up a 1997 Mazak VTC-20B. I've never seen or touched a Mazak and I have not had time to figure out the Mazatrol programming. But the ease of use in general, it is user friendly. Once we figured out how to upload programs, it has taken no time to get it running good (easy) parts.

    Also we just got a Hyundai Wia KF5600. Fanuc control. This machine has some grunt for a 40 taper. Much more rigid and solid than our other machines, but the Fanuc control is a whole different world than Hurco or Mazak. Everything takes at least 2x the key strokes. I like it, but Fanuc is what it is. Lots of good, lots of bad.

    To me they are all good machines, depends on how you use them and what your needs are. We do lots of stupid simple stuff and the conversational is SO fast and easy for that. We also have a computer in the middle of them with a seat of Gibbs. I run Gibbs on all of them, very easy and fast.

    Depends on what you have and need. What everyone knows. If you aren't up to speed on whatever system, it won't be fast. If you want run the same part with any and all brand machines, you have to have CAM. Big waste if you have to program the same part multiple times cause that one machine is busy and you have to put it in another machine.

  12. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3729
    Likes (Received)
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    Something along the lines of dmg I guess. Don’t get me wrong mazak is very high end and I don’t want to run anything else but their prices are higher then other similarly specd high end machines.
    I like what you have been writing in this thread vey much, however I would dispute ^^^ This statement.

    The Oddball in price vs performance is the 530C is more expensive than what one would normally suppose with little wiggle room.

    The MAZAK simpler turning centers are excellent (depending on implementation) and definitely justify their price but not as expensive as other machines from various MTBs that don't perform as well but might have smidge better build quality in a couple aspects.


    If you plot out a graph of number of axes vs. 100's of 1000's of $ you find that MAZAK in general occupies a massive middle portion of the graph.. With things like HAAS and other lesser platforms occupying the bottom left corner of the graph, then MAZAK occupying a vast central; region and then top right hand corner you get all the more specialized super expensive Japanese equipment, like (high end Makino, Nakamura, Okuma, OKK, etc.).

    Maybe I scribble that graph out.

    Kinda explains why they (MAZAk) own such a large chunk of the market and why the other MTBs don't compete head on but choose to do something different. I.e. either better + waaaay more expensive, or cheaper but no where near as good.

    In the case of a complex mill turn machine if it was not for the Mazak control older or current version like the 'Smooth X", I'd never in a million years contemplate serious B axis mill turn (application specific high mix low volume) Work and machine. That platform has good number of pretty solid work flows especially from ESPRIT (CAM). A lot you can do directly on the control if you are in a pinch (if you CAD CAM workflow is frizzing out), as well as lot of safety features + ability to do more hands on precise work nicely. + sim 5 axis through ESPRIT and other CAM/CAD_CAM systems.


    By contrast something like a newer Japanese machine like a Nakamura B axis mill with a Fanuc-ish control and nor (necessarily) well established work flow for CAD/CAM for High mix low volume product development to product first run would be a total nightmare for me and the probability of me crashing that machine (or one like it)would be substantially higher, and going very very slowly with everything in general would kinda hurt the bottom line and be absolutely counter to what we need to achieve. Even though the Nakamura seems quite nice (but $100K more) and has extra features on the control to help you not trash the machine... It's altogether a very different level of risk and "fluency" that can be achieved with such a machine (or at least that's my perception).



    __________________________________________________ ______________

  13. Likes HDFanboy liked this post
  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    BELGIUM
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    As far as DMG vd MAzak…
    anyone can compare the DMG NTX vs the mazak integrex? both sides, technical reliability and programming side?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    2691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by civicske2 View Post
    As far as DMG vd MAzak…
    anyone can compare the DMG NTX vs the mazak integrex? both sides, technical reliability and programming side?
    You should start your own Thread. This one is really about Conversational programming NOT B-Axis Turning centers.

    R

  16. Likes cameraman liked this post
  17. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    1,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    194

    Default

    As long as the machine is running while you program I think it's irrelevant, but having software and a computer for each "machinist" isn't a bad idea if you are supplied CAD models and prints for all of your jobs, pc software is far faster than finger cam if you have your templates or defaults setup properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    As for writing the program on the control instead of cam software we don't have any nor need any since we write all our programs of our mazak lathes and mills directly. The parts we make are quite simple and imo just as fast if not faster to do those on the machines themselves.
    This model works well if you have enough operators/machinists that know how to program and can keep up all of the new work getting pushed through the shop. This works well in a mostly short run / prototype shop environment where you can afford to pay everyone a fair wage. Where programmer's come into play and help shops be more productive, is when you can't find enough skilled labor to do the work, and you have more long run dedicated production work, where the operator skill is very minimal. Then you have lower cost operators, and slightly increased overhead for programmers who work on new incoming work and continuous improvement.

  18. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Near Seattle
    Posts
    4,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3360
    Likes (Received)
    1390

    Default

    OP will of course do what seems best for their shop, but here are some observations from my experience.

    1. Ergonomics and parallelism - Will the operator/programmer have to stand at the machine, arms raised, entering data on a keyboard 5 feet high, for 20 minutes, to generate a program that runs in 10 minutes? Simply have the control with a sensible keyboard and arranged such the user can sit down at a decent typing level will solve this. I've yet to see a machine control that was well set up for sustained typing. (I've not really seen a modern hurco...)

    Having an offline version of whatever the conversational is, so it can be run on a cheap laptop, would also be a huge step up.


    2. Data import. Often what makes conversational so slow is manually typing in coordinates that CAM pulls from a model. (that of course assumes you have a model.)

    So some workable import scheme is worth thinking about.


    I'm actually in the "generate it with cam and transfer it quickly" school, but I only need 1 seat of anything....

    Aside: Heidenhain's DO have a conversational system called "pilot" or some such, but the ".h language" is built into the control keyboard and much easier to write on the fly than standard G code (while having the same semantics), so I end up using that on my HH machine. Also, you can just type code up with a text editor and import it from any PC at hand, etc.

    But heidenhain's only seem to come on really high end machines.....

  19. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    2691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bryan_machine View Post
    OP will of course do what seems best for their shop, but here are some observations from my experience.

    1. Ergonomics and parallelism - Will the operator/programmer have to stand at the machine, arms raised, entering data on a keyboard 5 feet high, for 20 minutes, to generate a program that runs in 10 minutes? Simply have the control with a sensible keyboard and arranged such the user can sit down at a decent typing level will solve this. I've yet to see a machine control that was well set up for sustained typing. (I've not really seen a modern hurco...)

    Having an offline version of whatever the conversational is, so it can be run on a cheap laptop, would also be a huge step up.


    2. Data import. Often what makes conversational so slow is manually typing in coordinates that CAM pulls from a model. (that of course assumes you have a model.)

    So some workable import scheme is worth thinking about.


    I'm actually in the "generate it with cam and transfer it quickly" school, but I only need 1 seat of anything....

    Aside: Heidenhain's DO have a conversational system called "pilot" or some such, but the ".h language" is built into the control keyboard and much easier to write on the fly than standard G code (while having the same semantics), so I end up using that on my HH machine. Also, you can just type code up with a text editor and import it from any PC at hand, etc.

    But heidenhain's only seem to come on really high end machines.....
    OSP is qwerty keyboard. I used a lot of finger-cam on the learning curve. I gotta say, if that's the way your going, a Fanuc control isn't the way.

    But Mazatrol isn't prompted through the keyboard, it's soft keys for Process Selection. Your not pushing tons of buttons. You select a process, define the parameters, and make chips.

    R

  20. Likes cameraman liked this post
  21. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskermcdoogle View Post
    As long as the machine is running while you program I think it's irrelevant, but having software and a computer for each "machinist" isn't a bad idea if you are supplied CAD models and prints for all of your jobs, pc software is far faster than finger cam if you have your templates or defaults setup properly.


    This model works well if you have enough operators/machinists that know how to program and can keep up all of the new work getting pushed through the shop. This works well in a mostly short run / prototype shop environment where you can afford to pay everyone a fair wage. Where programmer's come into play and help shops be more productive, is when you can't find enough skilled labor to do the work, and you have more long run dedicated production work, where the operator skill is very minimal. Then you have lower cost operators, and slightly increased overhead for programmers who work on new incoming work and continuous improvement.
    Where I work we are a large production shop where we produce our own parts for our own products we design. In the machine shop we receive all our drawings from engineering as printed drawings so no access to the cad files which is the reason mazatrol works so well for us. Once the program is done and proven that program is never touched again. All the people working in the machine shop are trade qualified cnc machinists with mazatrol experience and are responsible for multiple machines and we won't hire any new people that can't do the same. If we hire someone who isn't familiar with all the new smooth g or smooth x controllers but have programmed on older model mazaks they get sent to John Hart for a 3 day training course on the new controllers.

    As for writing the programs on the machine we do also have software called smooth cam rs which you run on a pc in the machine shop but its not really cam package like the name implies. It basically lets you pick which machine your writing the program for then it just gives you a window with the machines control on the screen so your essentially sitting in front of the control but on the pc so you write the program exactly as if you would be standing at the machine. Since all our machines are networked you then just transfer the program to the machine to run it. I don't think anyone has even touched it since we got the machines since we don't have a person responsible for programming that doesn't already run machines so its just easier to program the next job on the machine while also running other parts.

  22. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    4,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1679
    Likes (Received)
    2038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    Where I work we are a large production shop where we produce our own parts for our own products we design. In the machine shop we receive all our drawings from engineering as printed drawings so no access to the cad files which is the reason mazatrol works so well for us. Once the program is done and proven that program is never touched again. Al.....
    .
    What happens when you have an odd shape and need points to program to?

  23. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    217
    Likes (Received)
    696

    Default

    With time being so valuable I canít believe a descent programmer couldnít shave a lot of time from old programs that just get run day in and day out. It just seems odd that with all the competition out there and the price of tooling that someone isnít all over the process day to day. Maybe to busy watching for someone on there phone.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  24. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Alabama
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    281

    Default

    Since the OP already dismissed the Doosan...I have to agree. The Ez Guide i on my Lynx is horrible. I came from a Haas that I used conversational on all the time. I love my Lynx, but the conversational is crap.

  25. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,061
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    908
    Likes (Received)
    2732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HDFanboy View Post
    .....In the machine shop we receive all our drawings from engineering as printed drawings so no access to the cad files .....
    Easy enough to change that.

  26. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    478
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    206

    Default

    Sorry I haven’t had the luxury of experiencing a multitude of different controls, so maybe this isn’t such an issue:
    If all your programming is conversational and lives on the control, then what do you do when that machine goes down taking all your hours of programming with it? Not to mention how do you transfer those programs to a new machine that may not have a compatible version of conversational software?

  27. Likes litlerob1 liked this post
  28. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Utah
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1266
    Likes (Received)
    2691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spruewell View Post
    Sorry I haven’t had the luxury of experiencing a multitude of different controls, so maybe this isn’t such an issue:
    If all your programming is conversational and lives on the control, then what do you do when that machine goes down taking all your hours of programming with it? Not to mention how do you transfer those programs to a new machine that may not have a compatible version of conversational software?
    This is a valid question. BUT it doesn't make enough of a difference to Mazatrol users, the amount of time committed to programming is not enough to be consequential.

    R


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
  •