The B.S. and the Truth

The B.S.:

"I have had little experience with the Cad side of NX but I think for simple stuff Mastercam is more user friendly."

The person who wrote this has been spouting off this utter crap for years on eMastercam. Is he a "circle" - clique member? Of course he is.

The B.S.:

"it's hard to beat the over all functionality of MC in a 2d realm." ... eMastercam's Motorcity Moron.
  
The Truth:

Both TopSolid CADCAM and CAMWorks have better over all functionality than Mastercam does in the "2d realm".

  • Mastercam requires tons of unnecessary and tedious Chaining. 
  • Mastercam makes very poor use of the information contained in a solid model. 
  • Mastercam doesn't automate WCS creation unless you use FBM Mill which is a complete piece of crap. 

The Truth from Rob K:

"LOL.... I don't think so...

Just keep in mind that the best, easiest, and most powerful software is the one that you know and feel most comfortable with.

I have used mastercam since version 3 up to when X came out on daily basis. We do have X5 in here that I sometimes have to use (some of our old programs were made in Mastercam, Surfcam, Inplot), but there just is no comparison IMO between Mastercam and NX..."

The Truth:

There is no comparison between a product like TopSolid CADCAM 7 and Mastercam either and this is just as true on the CAM end as it is on the CAD end. It's not even close!

CADCAM Technology Leaders


Close To The Truth from "within a thou" talking about the eMastercam forum:


"I use this site to learn I have been using mcam since V8. I say the ef away from all the eff away from all the political jesus and other debates cause I am not here for that. Myt profile says I started here in 2005 ish but I used another name (not one that was ever in trouble i just had an ex employer tied to it) The last little while from people getting banned to people posting things just to stir the pot to this new warn status this has become a grade school girls washroom. Quit the whining people are going to say what they want if ya don't like it ignore the post. This site was built not for the off topic section but to help each other when we have problems with mcam. There is many talented people in here but not one of this group not even the "circle" combined knows everything about mcam and machining. So why doesn't everyone take a second to step back and remember what the real reason this forum exists for. The downfall of this place has nothing to do with the JB or JP or Rekd or all the debates on the religous threads its people are just trying to push the envelope open a can of worms and others jump at it. There are people out there fishing and others prides are taking the bait and turning this into a d%ck judging contest. Its unreal what this site is turning into. Which is such aa shame because the leaders of the industry that pays for us to eat all reside on here. If all the top guys in here formed alliance wee could take on china india and all the other up and coming countries and secure the effing economy for generations to come. but everyone wants to have a attitude and or sit back and complain how its a unfair market. Well guess what its not gonna change it will get better before it gets worse so why not use this space that was created for us by people who monitor it for free to work together and use the years exp we have to stay atop of the countries trying to take this down."

My Comments:

It's about the lack of real discussion on the technology needed in CADCAM.

When real discussion of technology is censored and users are banned when they refuse to accept the "circle" / clique on eMastercam, you are left with what eMastercam has become and what you described above.

The majority of the blame for this is on CNC Software who for years has refused to do the right thing and run their own forum. It's also on In House Solutions and their choice of an incompetent, liar like Tyler Robertson who has run what Dave Thomson built into the ground with his mismanagement, coddling of "circle" / clique idiots, banning, censorship and inability to elect quality moderators, etc


The Truth:


Prices for Siemens NX CAM as posted to eMastercam by "Supernxfan". His entire post and the information below was censored / deleted in minutes.


NX CAM Foundation: NX 10450   $1190 + 262 (maint)

2.5 axis: NX 31432                     $3570 + 785 (maint)

3 axis: NX 31433                        $5950 + 1309 (maint)

4+5 axis: NX 31409                    $5950 + 1309 (maint)

Wire/EDM: NX 31431                 $2380 + 524 (maint)

Turning: NX 31408                      $4165 + 916 (maint)

If you need 2.5 axis and a 4th, you will need to purchase the 3 axis and the 4/5 axis add-on.


Posted To eMastercam: 
"I've had this problem for quite a while and just wanted to know If i was the only one. When I chain a series of edges for a partial chain on a solid model, once in a while, the last edge selection will select an edge from a completely different face than what was original specified initially. I've tried to select the edge using "From Back" and it still gives an inconsistent result. Of course I there are work-arounds with creating curves but it'd be nice to be able to fully drive tool paths on a a single solid model."

"I have had the same issues with selecting from a solid model. This has been a problem for some time. Just like all the other bugs this one will probably never get fixed." Contour in Mastercam is very cool toolpath. And many of it`s options not work on Solid geo. Plus it is very tricky and timeconsuming and buggy too. And with geo for every toolpath it is easy to edit your toolpathes when you need to get into tolerances and so on. I organize them by colour ,thickness and layer i USE MY CONVENTION for 15 years and I have custom level names and so on. Using curves geometry easy ,fast ,simple and safe too. If you want to work fast and effective do not use sold geo. Otherwice it is your time to waste."

"Create curves on edges is a work around in my opinion that I shouldnt have to use. Chaining from solids allows me to keep my files much cleaner, simpler and alot more easy to modify later but the glitch (or my lack of knowledge) of partially chaining a solid is really annoying."

"Recreating all of the edge curves and containment boundaries is a pain in the ar$e so I try to avoid doing it."

"Solid chaining in MC is a total waste of time . You will have issues constantly. I can add more but believe me you will get to this yourself very soon."

Posted to eMastercam 1-24-2011:


"It's a shame in a way, because mastercam is where I started programming (using computers) and it will always have a special place, but the truth is the truth. It got lost a long time ago and it's going to take a lot more then a fancy toolpath to bring it back."

"I was a featurecam, and then powermill programmer for 5 years. Got a new job and had to switch to MCX. I call mastercam, masterSCAM. its five years behind what i was doing. A copy of featurecam from 2006, before EGS got bought out is way better than MCX6. I wont even bitch about the lathe it sucks so bad." Both of the above posters to eMastercam "get it".  

After years of censorship on eMastercam In House Solutions employee Daniel Gingras now claims they aren't practicing censorshop any longer on eMastercam. The reason In House Solutions can no longer censor eMastercam like they use to is Mastercam X6 is such a mess and so many people are so angry with CNC Software and with Mastercam X6 for damn good reason.

The only thing that has really changed on eMastercam is that it's now impossible for In House Solutions to censor all the angry users of Mastercam so they have stopped some of their massive censorship that existed for years. It's nice to see that someone reminded In House Solutions employee Daniel Gingras that he can't rewrite history, whitewash what happened and push the past under the table.

Posted 1-24-2011 to eMastercam:


"I can remember some years back when I rarely saw ANYONE complaining about Mastercam and when I would complain about issues on this forum it would turn in to a neurosis bash fest. It was never the softwares fault and ALWAYS something that I must be doing wrong. The sad thing is, I am still dealing with some of those same bugs today."


Update 1-21-2012:


Posted today to the eMastercam forum:

"Over my many years of reading this forum I have grown to respect you as a programmer....tho you choose to not be a critic of Mastercam for whatever reason. Workarounds are NOT a fix.The beta program as it stands, is a complete joke (and this is coming from someone who was a "referral reseller" for the last 6 years) You should be getting the software for free with the amount of effort you put into it."

"Whatever the situation...the end user is the one that pays. I used to say that X3 was the Windows ME of Mastercam. X6 is far and above that title..." "I will agree with you though.. the beta program failed badly this time around. Way too much stuff got past the beta testers and CNC this beta cycle."

My comments on the above quotes:

Beta testing has been a failure with every release of Mastercam. The reason is because beta testers have to be approved by their local resellers and have to kiss their local resellers ass. This is yet another case of Dealers Before End Users and it's how Mark Summers runs CNC Software. Until Mark Summers changes his approach (and there are no signs he will) nothing with change with how poorly beta testing on Mastercam is done. To Mark Summers beta testing is some sort of reward for being a kiss ass Mastercam fanboi.

 

Update 12-17-2011:


Posted today to the eMastercam forum: "Mastercam is driving me friggin insane with it's limitations, constant chaining requirements, outdated alogrithims, usless spline machining, and generally unfriendly surfacing toolpaths." "... every release since 9 this software is going backwards. CNC Software is trying to cater to a new market with all these new toolpaths but they dont bother fix the simple things that their long standing customers (who have paid for their houses, cars, PBR habits and their retirements funds) run into constantly." "I run Verify with stl compare. and every part comes shows up on the screen as a friggen rainbow even though it is programmed correctly." "CNC Software needs to take a second to look in the mirror, address the long standing issues they have ignored. fix the simple things before they keep trying to continue to bait people in with the latest version of X and all its new bells and whistles." "I started using this software in V8 and V9 was a improvement but as soon as they turned it windows based in X this has gone down hill. When it went to X so many people were "ya its different because it isnt dos based any more, give it time you will see it will be better" and I listened and patiently sat back and waited to see what would come. It has gone so far downhill that all the people who did instal X6 who are now trying to explain to their bosses what happened with all the scrap parts and crashed machines on the floor thankfully I didnt upgrade to the new version. Read through any of the posts on here and you can see how well it is worring for them. Hell they even pulled the upgrade because it is that bad." "To sum this up you sold us a car with square wheels and as long as we are willing to keep putting the presents under your kids Christmas tree you will give us free oil changes on a car that wont take us where we want to go. It must be nice to work for a company that can xxxx off their customers the way you do and still have them come back. How did you do it? I would like to be able to take dump in a bag and convince someone to spends thousands on it. What venue o you use for marketing other then "keep giving us money and in time this bag of xxxx will start to smell better" "

 

Update 12-16-2011:


Posted today to the eMastercam forum is the truth about how badly MachineWorks (Verify in Mastercam) is implimented in Mastercam compared to other CAM products that use the exact same MachineWorks software component: "I find it rather amusing that you have to use an outside piece of software to verify anything that Mastercam does. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in MC now does it." I encounter bugs that have been around since X2 all the time. In fact, I encounter bugs NOW that were fixed in X2Mr2Sp1 and then magically reappeared in X3 only to have never been addressed since." "I've complained about some of them to my reseller. Some to QC. Some on here. My response was always the same. With the exception of CNC's QC department, everyone was quick to blame ME rather than to admit that the software was flawed. I got frustrated and gave up" "Someday, God knows, Mastercam will have an automatic update feature and patches will be avaliable every other week... like some of its competitors..." "If I had to put my name or money in a CAD/CAM system, Mastercam wouldn't even be considered as an option. It's simple math: you can measure a CAx company by how long they take to address bugs. Long lead times means less or no respect for the customer maintenance dollar and demonstrates clearly the differences between the speech and the actions."

Update 12-6-2011:


This was posted recently to the heavily moderated and censored Gibbscam Message Board by "DTM" who uses both Gibbscam and Mastercam. It's a reference to just how bad the eMastercam forum is:

"That board is a joke. If you point out any of the features that don't work correctly they just give you a work around and act like you don't know how to use the software."
Speaking of eMastercam, here is some advice given by one of the few honest and objective posters on eMastercam. He has used Delcam PowerMill and knows that Mastercam  makes very poor use of solid models:

1. Mastercam is mostly driven by wireframe, so get used to creating a lot of lines and arcs, then chaining your wrist numb afterwards. Don't use splines unless absolutely necessary. Try to use straight lines and arcs as much as possible.

2. Do NOT rely on M/C to verify itself to a model. Won't happen. You have to visually verify everything. Even then, triple check everything.

3. Rest roughing will probably drive you crazy. Also posted today to the eMastercam forum: "The main issue I have with toolholder definitions is that they keep changing. I'll pop into an op to change a parameter, not even going to the holder page, and it'll give me the holder-doesn't-match window when I exit. From then on any holder changes won't propagate properly. After tweaking a few tools the holder association is useless and I have to define it for each op separately"


Update 12-2-2011:


A new comment was made today (see comments below) that shows how CNC Software doesn't care about a fixing long time reported bugs. CNC Software lied to this person who made the comment. I know this for a fact because when I worked for Qualcomm's prototype machine shop we reported the same bug and we never got an answer back. In fact, Qualcomm's prototype machine shop reported many bugs and we never got any answers back so we finally stopped reporting bugs. For the record Qualcomm's prototype machine shop got so disgusted with Mastercam and how they were treated by CNC Software that a few months ago they dumped Mastercam and switched to Featurecam.   



Update: 11-9-2011:


This was posted today to eMastercam and shows how yet another end user has had enough of how In House Solutions runs eMastercam. "Why did my post get modified? This is BS, This board sucks just as bad as the software." How about this post to eMastercam? "Anyone else out there fed up with not having holder definition for standard surface toolpaths? I was told it would be in X5 and then again in X6. Well from what I have heard it is not in X6. Will Mastercam eventually add this functionality or will they try to sway everyone to use the new HST? The High Speed Toolpaths are fine for certain situations and if you have unlimited control memory. For those of us who just want to use a simple flowline or parallel path and are limited on control memory do we have to continue to suffer"  



Update 11-23-2011 to the above post that got only one response:


"Come On!!! You telling me that out of all the people that looked at this post no one has a complaint. I myself am tired of the standard surface toolpaths having the old style tab pages. They need to be treestyle like the rest with the ability to select a freaking toolholder. Every time I open one of the standard surface toolpaths operations it pops up in a different place on the screen. That is annoying as H#!!. I waste so much time having to verify toolholders that it's ridiculous. Well I guess I must be the only one still using the standard surface toolpaths. Anybody can speak up or forever hold your peace."  

CNC Software and their resellers constantly lie and about when long outstanding bugs will finally get  fixed:

"It's pretty hard though when almost all the competition has holders for all their toolpaths and they see me having to do the extra work to verify tool holder clearances." "I have been told by my reseller and others from CNC that it would be in the last couple of releases." More and more Mastercam users are finally getting sick of the constant lies and foot dragging that are the standard practice of CNC Software's owner Mark Summers, his puppet Ben Mund, Mastercam resellers and Mastercam fanboi's. Here is a quote from the eMastercam forum from yet another Mastercam user who has had more than enough of being treated like he's a complete idiot: "Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Stop pretending you don’t understand. FIX THE SH*T."  

Posted to eMastercam on 11-16-2011 in regards to someone complaining about bad graphics and phantom lines in Mastercam: "Dude. This has been a problem since V8 get used to it. It ain't going away. Scroll to refresh and save a lot. That's the world of Mastercam"

CNC Software licenses MachineWorks for their Verify for Mastercam. For years other CAM programs have gotten much more out of MachineWorks Verify than CNC Software has. In other applications MachineWorks is faster and the solid cut part graphics are much sharper, brighter and clearer. Mastercam doesn't automate handling .stl files like other CAM systems do. As a result it's often not practical to use .stl files in Mastercam because CNC Software has never created the proper user interface for handling .stl files. The following quotes from eMastercam detail how frustrating it is to deal with .stl files in Mastercam: "I have been trying to position my stl file for rest roughing on a particular piece for awhile now. No matter what I do it always comes in in some strange orientation. I have to rotate it and translate it to get it into position. The worst part of it is if I create the toolpath and then decide to change a parameter, it completely discards the file and I have to start all over again. It has to be the most frustrating part of my day screwing around with this crap.I miss my Powermill" "The xform - stl is a pain in the butt to use. I usually will try to get my stock placement correct without having to tinker with that. It would be nice if it were more intuitive or had better functionality. Maybe similar to dynamic xform"

Comment posted to the eMastercam forum 11-15-2011 in regards to ModuleWorks Machine Simulation ingratiation with Mastercam :

"If you run big or complicated parts, machine sim is so slow to open that I have gone back to using verify. IMO, It is quite badly integrated to Mastercam with all the functions working differently."

CNC Software has not done the proper job documenting how to use ModuleWorks Machine Simulation in Mastercam and instead made a half-assed attempt at documentation that's very basic and have mostly relied on ModuleWorks for the rest of the documentation which is no where near adequate because it's CNC Software who needs to provide it.


The following are comments posted to the eMastercam forum:
"Maybe someday they can fix this. If you have been doing this sense ver8 I guess it's not likely" "Ugh, it never ends. Mastercam just decided its own depths to use for a 2d dynaimc toolpath. I was going to clean up the bottom of a pocket with a depth of -2.20689 and top of stock listed at -2.19189 and at the machine nothing was cut. I measured the pocket and it was -2.201" deep after the toolpath. There were three more of these pockets and they were done correctly. I checked the operation parameters and they were all identical. Any ideas? I also had a 3D HST waterline toolpath start 1" down in the cavity for a cut that was .1" long, then proceed to the minimum start depth of -.15" to begin finishing. It caught me off guard that its first move was into the cavity so I had to pause the machine and double check in back plot. So lets all join in the hype and shout Hurray Mastercam X5! Okay, enough of that. I'm moving back to X4 MU3 AT LEAST until X5 MU1 comes out. I guess I got suckered into thinking X5 would be stable since it took so long to release it. Apparently I was wrong"  

Comments regarding Mastercam's HST Toolpaths: 

  "Well, came out this morning to check a part that ran all night and found a bunch of gouges from the hybrid tool path. The tool violated the containment boundary on some simple geometry and did a few zig-zags in my part. It did show up in back plot and I missed it because there is a lot going on in this part. I'm very glad it is only a fixture and it isn't scrapped. Just goes to show, don't turn your back on Mastercam even when you programmed the tool path correctly."

 "I set up a waterline toolpath to machine from 2 degrees to 90 degrees and it is only machining a fraction of the geometry. Is there something I am doing wrong here? It seems that every time I go to use these toolpaths I spend more time trying to get them to work right than if I just used the old surfacing toolpaths. I ran into the exact same issue on horizontal HST where it only machined a fraction of the actual horizontal regions. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wish CNC software would invest the time to get these to work right, or invest the time to improve the old surfacing toolpaths to make them more efficient. For something that is supposed to make my job easier these HST toolpaths end up wasting a ton of my time. If there is a way to get these working right maybe CNC could release the guide "The Black Magic Guide to Getting HST Toolpaths to Work Properly". They would probably make some serious $$$ on that publication. According to Mastercam this finishing operation should take ~3 HST toolpaths, Waterline, Horizontal, and either raster or scallop. It just NEVER seems to work that way and it is going to make for a really long Sunday..."

"... issues include gouging, retracting with the ball mill tangent to a vertical wall creating marks, retracting with the tool tangent to the part surface when it should be .15" above, etc... These are anything but bulletproof and it typically takes 3-5 tries when things are going smoothly. Ultimately I did get the part finished with my three HST toolpaths but it was anything but smooth getting there."

"Does this mean the zig zag option in the waterline and Rest waterline will stop retracting hundreds of times when you can clearly see where it works and doesn't work, yet the geometry is virtually identical?"

"Of course you don't see it in verify. just on the scrapped component."

"I have toyed with the idea of beta but I am a jobbing shop and cant afford the lost time using the software at an even buggier stage. I have to shut down or 'reboot 3 or 4 times a day just to get these some of these rest paths to process."

"when you spend this amount of money on something you would expect that it would come with documentation that would at least explain enough for you to figure out its intended usage."

"Too many times do you have to guess what a certain function does or how it is intended to be used."

"I can understand his frustration and the presumed "black magic/tribal knowledge" of some of these paths, especially when you have used something like Volumill that gives excellent results and is very simple to use. You can help but wonder why things need to be this complicated."  

Comments regarding the direct interface between Mastercam and Vericut:

"Already use the interface but Vericut cannot define the cutters properly as Mastercams tool manager is too basic to release the right information I am told by CG Tech." "You are right that the holder definition in mastercam is very basic with no radiuses. And the cutter definition is way too simplistic. That is why we built a tool library in vericut and use that." "I have the same problem. X5 MU1 and Vericut 7.1.4 What is the deal with Mastercam tool library not being able to define a tool with a holder in the library??! Is this going to be fixed?? I can add a hsk holder to my tool, but it doesn't stick the next time I program a new part. It's annoying having to add a hsk holder each time to a tool and not have it stick. Especially with 320 tools." "This is how I do it too, just frustrating that I have to"


No comments: