UG vs Mastercam

This video is awesome. It really shows you the difference between the two cam systems finished product, the cut.
But you gotta watch the whole thing for full effect.
maybe 3 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHomO81uGfs&feature=related

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well pretty simple part................. ok NX is faster on the screen, more efficient code but $2-$3X as much?
Want a VW or a Ferrari? Chevy or a Cadillac?
This is cool!

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F2B65FCC0BADF283

Oh BTW my next computer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7H0K1k54t6A

-- \|||/ (o o) ______.oOO-(_)-OOo.____________________ ~ Gil ~ the self proclaimed IT13 king
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/14/2010 3:19 AM, cncmillgil wrote:

That type of work was my bread and butter for 2 years. Not too bad if you have a 5ax highspeed trunnion as shown. But look at the table movements. Run that same program on older slower trunnion. One must control the tool axis in such a way to prevent excessive table motion (run time). The tougher ones yet? Doing them on 5ax head/table machines. The toughest of all?: Shrouded impellers. I came up with a pretty cool method using Streamline but it still requires a fair amount of drive geometry creation.
NX7.5 will have a new module specific to impeller/blisk work. You select the hub, shroud, and blade features and it fills in the blanks. Would have been sooo much easier. Currently the undisputed king of all things blisk and impeller machining is NREC. That full seat is >$100K. But, the program is done in an hour or two.
-- Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Mastercam user in that video is either completely clueless (Read: Banquer level cluelessness), or was intentionally tanking the test.
The HST toolpaths in Mastercam would have looked very similar to the UG path (only without the complete burial there at the end), and using Dynamic Milling would have been a completely different league.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The Mastercam user in that video is either completely clueless (Read: Banquer level cluelessness), or was intentionally tanking the test.
The HST toolpaths in Mastercam would have looked very similar to the UG path (only without the complete burial there at the end), and using Dynamic Milling would have been a completely different league.
****** Yep, the average UG program would prolly look like the mastercam program. However... After the toolpath is done is where UG steps ahead of Mastercam. Changing and tweaking it is a zillion times easier and more powerful than mastercam. Again...the test had no common control data to compare...so it's nonsence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I made that video and at the time it was completely valid. The only one who is clueless are the fools who haunt this forum.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And another thing NX does NOT cost 2-3 times more than Mastercrap. That is a bald face lie.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2010 6:57 PM, Batman wrote:

That propaganda has been spread for years now. Even more revealing, add the cost of MCX and Solidworks then compare it to NX.
-- Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it's not. You can pick up mastercamx for 5-6 grand if you bargain.
So what's your best deal on UG?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vinny wrote:

And what's the annual maintenance cost for a single seat of UG?
--
Black Dragon

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 4:05 PM, Black Dragon wrote:

I would be interest to see which level of MC you get for 5-6 grand... You can be assured the maintenance will not be based on that price.
If there is a glitch in software pricing, then the maintenance is it. Nobody using any software feels they should pay much for it. Regardless of the deal you work it's based on a percentage of full retail value. I think 15%. That said, I think Mastercam does the same structure (am I wrong?). But, for that cost you get ridiculous good support. They have real people and great support newsgroups - not a bunch of posers high fiving each other with beer mug emoticons.
Also, there are other ways to package NX. There is the CAM Express version of NX which is the cam (at various levels) minus the fancy modeling. Even with that package you get basic curves and simple surfaces (as required for toolpath creation of simple sketch geometry). You could do a CAM Xpress with Solidedge as the modeler which keeps the cost down.
A bit long winded (you asked a simple question) but the cost is based on full retail.
Btw, someone mentioned (the over used term) Highspeed machining... I define that as maintaining constant surface footage, constant chipload , arcing in corners along with some sort of axis smoothing when entering and exiting off a cut area. NX has always had those abilitys (as does Cimitron I'm sure). It's just a matter of selecting certain criteria.
-- Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..
It's 10% Bill. So $16K for level 3 + solids, and your maintenance is $1,600 bucks.

Unless it's changed drastically in the last two years, NX's high speed machining paths are kinda crappy. I'm sure the complex 5 axis paths are the shit, but for regular 2.5D stuff, it's quite a bit behind Mastercam's Dynamic Milling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We have a seat of NX7 and X2. We stopped paying maintenance on MC when we got UG. I've switched back and forth between the two systems over the last twenty years. Theres no question UGs strengths are with complex part programming. I cant imagine roughing a complex part without cavity mill or surface milling without streamline. As for 2.5D, MC requires a lot of curve creation and manipulation. That may have changed now that it finally has feature recognition. But NX also has things like manual face milling. Its one of those things that you have to use to fully appreciate. When it comes to high speed 2.5D milling, Ive always been satisfied (more or less) with NXs trochoidal motion. There have been some issues, pr#s logged etc., but it does the job. I do think Surfcams Truemill is superior to conventional trochoidal. And I wish Siemens would just swallow its pride and pay the licensing to incorporate it (or rip it off as Volumill and Mastercam did). But Im not holding my breadth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We have a seat of NX7 and X2. We stopped paying maintenance on MC when we got UG. I've switched back and forth between the two systems over the last twenty years. Theres no question UGs strengths are with complex part programming. I cant imagine roughing a complex part without cavity mill or surface milling without streamline. As for 2.5D, MC requires a lot of curve creation and manipulation. That may have changed now that it finally has feature recognition. But NX also has things like manual face milling. Its one of those things that you have to use to fully appreciate. When it comes to high speed 2.5D milling, Ive always been satisfied (more or less) with NXs trochoidal motion. There have been some issues, pr#s logged etc., but it does the job. I do think Surfcams Truemill is superior to conventional trochoidal. And I wish Siemens would just swallow its pride and pay the licensing to incorporate it (or rip it off as Volumill and Mastercam did). But Im not holding my breadth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We have a seat of NX7 and X2. We stopped paying maintenance on MC when we got UG. I've switched back and forth between the two systems over the last twenty years. Theres no question UGs strengths are with complex part programming. I cant imagine roughing a complex part without cavity mill or surface milling without streamline. As for 2.5D, MC requires a lot of curve creation and manipulation. That may have changed now that it finally has feature recognition. But NX also has things like manual face milling. Its one of those things that you have to use to fully appreciate. When it comes to high speed 2.5D milling, Ive always been satisfied (more or less) with NXs trochoidal motion. There have been some issues, pr#s logged etc., but it does the job. I do think Surfcams Truemill is superior to conventional trochoidal. And I wish Siemens would just swallow its pride and pay the licensing to incorporate it (or rip it off as Volumill and Mastercam did). But Im not holding my breadth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2010 8:56 AM, Joe788 wrote:

What do you get with level 3 + solids? I would assume at that price you get the full multi-axis enchilada, no? Btw, solids is a given nowadays. One thing that used to really piss me off in MC as having to tell it (a computer of all things) I was selecting a solid edge as opposed to a curve...

I've had good success with the Trochoidal milling. That said, it's maintaining a constant volumetric removal rate and keeping in the metal that's key to me on airframe parts. Opposite of molds, we are cutting from the outside in. Tougher to process than a bounded area. Constantly cutting on and off surfaces beats up inserted tools when aggressively milling due to the chip thinning. Everyone and their mothers has figured out pockets. <g>
Having used Vericut's Optipath over the years, I've always wished volumetric removal would be implemented at the cam side. Think of a Z-level (waterline) roughed pocket with a contoured floor (not flat). There are uneven tool loads for the next tool even if you use the old "find the uncut corners" options. Using Optipath, imagine now that next tool speeds up and slows down based on the volume of material it's in? I'm hearing a buzz about that coming in a future release of NX. I would assume other cam companies are on it as well. I have seen a large airframe part go from 20 hours to under 7 just using just that process without any change to the actual tool path step down or stepover.
-- Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BillT wrote:

For ~$15K you get Mill 3 and Solids. And Mastercam Solids is the poorest implementation of solids I've ever seen. Robert White did a better job when he wrote FastSolid (addon) for Cadkey in the mid to late 90's. Hardly anybody machines from solids in Mastercam unless they're doing simple prismatic parts. Everyone heavy into surfacing imports or models solids then creates wireframes and surfaces from them to machine from. It really is truly pathetic compared to what I see our Cimatron users doing.
Mastercam will cost you well over $20K if you need a decent CAD system, Multiaxis, decent verification, etc. Initial software cost is likely close to that of UG. Around here (geographically) training and startup would be EXTREMELY costly. Is much much easier to hire people experienced with Mastercam than any other system. I know quite a few designers in the mold business who are proficient with UG but the ONLY shop I know of which used UG for NC programming was sold and absorbed by a larger company and is now using Mastercam.
There's a reason for that and it's very much related to wages, but that's a rant for another day as I've got to go earn my peanuts now. ;)
--
Black Dragon

It is bad luck to be superstitious.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank for making the Mscam pathetic solids point. Its exactly what I also have experienced. Not that Mscam users are, but any dufus can be up & running Mscam within a few days making good toolpaths & learning how to jump through those hoops. Not the case with UG or Cimatron. Its high end shit that needs highly $skilled$ personal. -- \|||/ (o o) ______.oOO-(_)-OOo.____________________ ~ Gil ~ the self proclaimed IT13 king
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cncmillgil wrote:

When done with a 3D job in Mastercam a user is usually left with a cluster fuck of solids, wireframes, surfaces and boundaries on scads of different levels to get there.
Sometimes even copies of the damned model transformed to system coordinates because toolpaths borked when using a work coordinate system that for a decade has been broken.

Highly skilled personnel demand commensurate wages and like I said before, that's a rant for another day.
--
Black Dragon

May you live in uninteresting times.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I just got done modeling up a core, puting a plastic part in it, gates, etc... And just like you said, I'm all done and I have all kinds of lines and geometry left over on all kinds of levels. The solids seem relatively stable, but the editing is where it seems like it falls short? It doesn't supress very well, or reorder, etc... It's not solidworks, but it works none the less.
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.