Has Anyone Noticed...

that all the new CAM technology (64 bit, major user interface enhancement, less modal programming, etc.) are showing up in
applications that run inside of SolidWorks rather than in stand alone CAM systems?
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon_banquer wrote:

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.
--
Black Dragon

As near as I can tell, you're not any crazier
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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:
1. SolidWorks 2. Lets say Solidcam 3. Solid Edge with ST to fix what SolidWorks can't quickly and easily fix.
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.
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon_banquer wrote:

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 and metric.
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.
--
Black Dragon

SEX-CHANGE NUN BECOMES TV WRESTLER!!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 choice.

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 reason.

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 be.
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yay! A new buzzword for Jon!
Modal modal modal, modal modal. Modal? Modal. Modal, modal, MODAL!!!
How's your "work" "with" HSMWorks coming along?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon_banquer wrote:

Well, my guess would be because then the software companies don't have to worry about the CAD side, just the CAM side.. And plus, they get to charge just as much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.