CAM..?

Jon,
Well, maybe so, but I never work with non-native imported geometry, so
it's not an issue for me. We're not a job shop, and I don't know what
kind of operation the orignal poster runs; I was just giving them my
point of view on why we chose the CAM package that we did. For me, the
SolidWorks/Camworks package is the best fit for my operation.

Mark Serbu
Serbu Firearms, Inc.
www.serbu.com

 

Mark,

I pretty much figured that. I can see why you would go with the
SolidWorks / CAMWorks if you don't have to work with files done in
others systems on a regular basis.

jon

 

"GibbsCam , easy to pickup and does a pretty good job on
mold work and is fast on toolpaths."

Geometry creation in GibbsCAM is not easy to pick up for
anyone who has used what I will call "standard wireframe
creation tools" like are found in AutoCAD, Cadkey,
Ashlar-Vellum, etc.

Gibbs geometry creation is *point based* which takes much
longer than the standard wireframe tools in AutoCAD, Cadkey,
Ashlar-Vellum, etc.

I also question whether GibbsCAM is really much easier to
pick up.

Having said all that I currently am using GibbsCAM because
it's very big in the market I live in, as is MasterCAM which
I also use.

Given a choice I would rather be using and helping to
improve the CAM in VX because VX has significant advantages
over SolidWorks. I like the idea of one company providing
both CAD and CAM and feel that CAD and CAM really are
inseparable.

jon

 

Making up new buzzwords so soon?
Where did you first hear that one?
"Wireframe" .......

 

<snicker>

 

What happened to the other guy?
He was just here, raving about how good it was ....

 

You'd really get into it with that loon that was posting
that components & ACIS kernels & translators are the
wave of the future ......

Ever met him?

 

[/QUOTE]

Jon,
I don't know if I really agree with that. The problem I always see is
one end of the program you end up with drags behind the other. It would
seem that there have been far more advances in Cad drawing techniques
(primarily tools that make things easier) in stand alone Cad programs
than what is typically found in Married programs.

What you often end up with is Antiquated Drawing Tools, because it
seems the CAM side of things is usually in need of a few touch ups. Any
new Cad techniques never seem to get placed into the program with any
urgency. Sometimes they can't put some in for fear of copyright
violations, or so they tell me. Other times I have heard them say they
"can't put that in, because our current user base wouldn't be USED TO
IT". Sheeez !

While there is a slight convenience factor to have the two married
together, I would far rather have the ability to purchase and use
cutting edge drawing programs (which are very affordable today) and
then use a seperate program for Cam.

When it comes to the aspect of Cad married to Cam, the "affordability
factor" is seriously compromised, and I suspect the Cad/Cam providers
actually prefer it that way. Your stuck with whatever they give you,
and also whatever they charge for upgrading/maintenance.

Good Cad is getting extremely cost effective, and almost fun when new
programs come out that actually have time saving features. Two older
examples I can think of were the simple "auto alignment" guidelines
used by Ashlar and now adopted by many programs, and also the "right
mouse - slide a shape" to select a particular tool without using the
toolbar or command lines. Some command lines are simply a pain in the
rear when there are 15 or so tools with the same first letters that
stack alpha numerically.

So, I prefer a seperate cad program. But, In order to make it all work,
there simply has to be more standardization on import and export
formats. I do not need to say much about incompatabilities or
inconsistancies as most deal with them on occassion if not daily. That
sure is a big mess. Depending on your needs, some are not so bad, but
some things are hideous. Better today than ever, is the export options
of the Cad programs within a complete package. Were it not for that,
many are stuck with proprietary formats that make sharing a pain.

I'm not sure how to take Cliffs comment that Cad/CAM together is how it
"started", as I never thought much about it. I would have thought Cad
was around before someone said "lets Cut something". But then again, I
may have missed a lot of bickering along the way, so who knows if I am
even commenting on the same line of thought.

My .02

Chris L

 

Chris,

Seems like you put a lot of thought into your post.

"I don't know if I really agree with that. The problem I
always see is one end of the program you end up with drags
behind the other."

Even with separate applications you often see problems like
2 1/2 axis toolpathing lagging far behind 3 axis toolpath
surfacing or vise versa.

"It would seem that there have been far more advances in Cad
drawing techniques(primarily tools that make things easier)
in stand alone Cad programs than what is typically found in
Married programs."

This is certainly not the case with VX.

"What you often end up with is Antiquated Drawing Tools,
because it seems the CAM side of things is usually in need
of a few touch ups."

Without a doubt what you wrote above applies to Gibbs. I'd
really like to see Gibbs address this.

"Other times I have heard them say they "can't put that in,
because our current user base wouldn't be USED TO IT".
Sheeez !"

This annoys the shit out of me. The CAD/CAM company needs to
make use of the best possible UI tools and move forward
regardless of die hard users wanting to stay with an old UI.
I realize many will strongly disagree with my stance but so
be it. VX totally changed their UI. From tons of toolbars to
one toolbar. I doubt anyone will complain. A lot of
MasterCAM users will hate the new MasterCAM UI. CNC Software did
what needed to be done and should have been done a long time
ago. The only question is did CNC Software (MasterCAM) come
up with a UI as good as VX's one toolbar approach which
totally ends toolbar everywhere mania. Did CNC Software do
what PTC and VX and are doing with the dashboard display
concept ? (Just barely implemented in VX right now but
already makes a big difference.)If not and CNC Software just
used newer tools with no real plan than the shit will
probably hit the fan.

"While there is a slight convenience factor to have the two
married together, I would far rather have the ability to
purchase and use cutting edge drawing programs (which are
very affordable today) and then use a separate program for
Cam."

VX is cutting edge CAD in many ways. What little I have
seen of VX CAM I would describe as needs UI work but the
underlying power appears to be there... so yes there is a
compromise but the gap is quickly closing. I certainly
understand your point, though. It's valid in many ways.

"I would have thought Cad was around before someone said
"lets Cut something".

Nope.

http://www.mcsaz.com/about/founder.htm

http://www.mcsaz.com/about/history.htm


jon

 

Nope.
CAD grew out of the need to plot & verify complex
machine motions.
If you could plot the end of a tool you could instead
drive the same graphics to show lines & circles & text
& suchlike.

Folks could use drawing boards okay but needed
computers to calculate the toolpaths and run the
complex machine tools.

I've written at least one simple stand-alone special
purpose CAD program using only an APT program ....
internally, the graphics are all just plots of a toolpath
that exists only for the purpose of the graphics display.
And APT existed in the early 1950s .......

Start in 1951 .....
http://joelorr.home.mindspring.com/id55.htm
HTH

 

I saw you asking what it was on a BBS a few months ago <G>.
Expecting actual users to tell you ....

 

He DID remember something that I'd posted !!!!

 

With todays programming options, they should be able to make more than
one interface available, so those who do not like change can rot with
what they are used to.

I think that is what amazed me years back with Ashlar... A Single
toolbar took care of what others felt they needed 10 for.



I said >"I would have thought Cad was around before someone said

I learn something every day !

Thanks,
Chris L

 

Chris,

"With todays programming options, they should be able to
make more than one interface available, so those who do not
like change can rot with what they are used to."

LOL. This is what VX did in a very cool way.

VX went from 10 separate toolbars and icons everywhere to 1
toolbar with tabs (click the tab and the toolbar changes to
the one you want). If someone wants a toolbar to be
separate / stand alone then all they have to do is right click
on the tab for the toolbar they want to stand alone and choose
untab. They then have a separate stand along toolbar. To
reattach it you right click and hit tab. It's the best of
both worlds.

"I learn something every day !"

That's really what it's all about for me.

jon

 

We are still awaiting jb's Visual Basic program <G>.

 

Well thanks for the input..
The design engineer here looked at a couple of CAM programs MasterCam and
EdgeCam I think. Still looking from the last time we talked. I think he's
still monitoring this thread from Goggle.. He was going to look at Gibbscam
and one other I can't seem to remember...

Thanks again for the info..

jb..

 

EdgeCAM is a nice system that has lots of advantages and a very bright
future because Pathtrace licensed the source code to A3DS Paralogix.
Well worth your time to think about the advantages this gives Pathtrace
/ EdgeCAM.

jon

 

You probably need to consider what your needs might
be in 5 or 10 years if all goes well.

Would what product ABC does today do the job?
5 axes or more? 4 axes wire? Swiss? What else might
enter the mix? HSM?
How certain are you that they will still be in business that
long?

 

If past expereance is anything.. we'll still be running the same machines we
have now. Product is for the most part 'static' here. Some small changes.
Dought will 4 or 5 axis ever be needed.

You mean the CAM software company 'right'?

 

What materials do you cut?
Would high speed machining, robots, pallets, Lasers, etc. help any?

We always know too little <g>.