So CAM technology is being developed to work with popular entry
level CAD technology. That's what you get when software development
is driven primarily by marketing desires. Nothing ground breaking
here, same old same old.
Machining modules written to run in Autocad and Cadkey, for example,
have been available for eons. Again, old ideas, different software.
Nothing is ground breaking with this "new" CAM technology either,
its simply already existing technology dressed up in a new wardrobe.
However, in most cases the wardrobe is incomplete.
Is it smart marketing to not touch the CAD part of stand-alone
products like Mastercam, Surfcam, Featurecam and Gibbscam for years on
end? How much longer can these products grow and ignore the
integration that more users are demanding and still remain relevant?
I certainly agree "the wardrobe is incomplete" in these new integrated
products especially compared to say UG NX. Of course one could say
that it's also incomplete in the stand-alone products I mentioned
above. The focus on integrated CAM has begun to shift to less modal
interfaces and I think this is a big step in the right direction. The
biggest problem that I see is the CAD end doesn't play well with
imported geometry. Sadly, I doubt any CAM company will develop an
integrated CAM for Solid Edge with ST. Finally UG NX user interface is
nothing to write home about. I don't like it at all. Very modal.
Today the answer is more expensive and broken into separate pieces
than ever if you're not a mold maker:
2. Lets say Solidcam
3. Solid Edge with ST to fix what SolidWorks can't quickly and easily
I think a solution exists but CAM companies don't seem interested or
motivated to create what I think would be a much better solution. All
the CAM companies pretty much play the same game... pass the buck.
San Diego, CA
The people who are demanding the "integration", including yourself,
should be, in my opinion, looking at the already existing integrated
applications available. Applications which have been available for
decades therefore making them mature. Applications, which in the end
are much more cost effective than a mish mash of cobbled together
CAD and CAM programs could ever hope to be.
Cliff posted good reasons why all these add ons are not a good idea.
I'm just going to say I've been there and done that and he's right.
This time. <g>
Working with imported data has improved by several orders of magnitude
over the past two decades. It's a very rare occasion I get bad geometry
I have to fuck with first to be able to machine from these days. When I
do it's usually data that has been imported and exported from several
different systems as well as being scaled back and forth between inch
That is not in any way a reflection of any flaws in the particular
applications being used, it is a flaw in the decision making
abilities of the brain damaged people who let these things happen.
While they are more robust they also have major problems with being
modal. As way of example Solidworks / SolidCAM is far less modal than
UG NX 6.
I don't read what Cliff posts. Cliff is a proven liar and he's
incompetent. What little knowledge Cliff might have had is dated. I
doubt Cliff could machine his way out of a paper bag.
On the subject of add-ons there are major problems but this does not
negate the fact that almost the entire CAM industry wants to move away
from any real CAD development leaving a CAM user with very little
It's not the data that's the problem, it's how the part has been
designed and what you have to do to it to give the engineer the part
he wants when he wants it. Time to market is a huge factor for the
company I work for. We are the clear leaders in our field for a
The attitude of most machinists is they will work with whatever
management gives them and do the best they can with it. The problem
with this attitude is it makes parts more expensive than they need to
San Diego, CA
No major changes to the CAD part of Mastercam, Surfcam, Gibbscam,
Featurecam, etc. have occurred for several years now.
Based on this is your guess still a guess?
San Diego, CA
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.