Conversational vs G code

I went to an interview where the shop manager wanted somebody to run his Mazaks. That's all the shop had in the place and he had a few. The were
fairly new. I've run Mazaks for probably 4-5 years but I've been doing it all in G&M code, and if I got stuck I'd use Surfcam. He said he'd prefer someone who knew Maztrol. I told him it probably wouldn't be a huge deal to figure out I've used lots of different machines with different controls and another one had conversational, but he was quite insistant. The stuff they were doing didn't look like rocket science or anything pretty much, keyways, a few tapped holes, couple bores. Nothing with compound angles or funky stuff. Am I thinking wrong about this? I'm going to grab the book from the place I work at now, they've got a couple Mazaks with it but they never use it if they didn't throw the manuals in the trash. Russ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Russ Wizinsky wrote:

No, the shop owner is thinking wrong, but trying to convince him will be like talking to a wall. They are not doing "rocket science" because conversational programming (I'm assuming that is what Maztrol is) is usually so limited that anything really complex can't be done with it. Our shop at work is the same way. Since the only guy who knew the CAD-CAM system died, they call up a consultant at bridgeport to write all the tough lines of G-code for them that they can't get the conversational mode to do.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<crossposted to a.m.c as the OP posted there also>
Actually Jon, Mazatrol can do pretty much anything you can do in G-code, abiet sometimes with a slower cycle time due to excessive safe moves, etc. That said, however, the advantage to Maz is that once you are somewhat fluent in programming it, you can program, set up and be running parts probably before the CAM guy even gets his PC booted up. That is where Maz shines, a job shop where onesies/twosies are the norm. Maz is probably the best conversational program out there, especially for lathe work. Ask DW how complex things can be done in Maz, he uses it every day, for sometimes very complex parts. It is used in our jigs shop daily on an Integrex (lathe/mill combo machine), for very complex fixturing parts. If you are doing high-volume production on a Maz, Mazatrol is not for you, EIA rules in that environment where optimization is key.
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony wrote:

OK, this is obviously way better than the conversational systems I've seen.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably not, Anthony. To begin with, the user would need re-input the geometry from a print or something. Much data is CAD or CAD/CAM these days.
A good CAD/CAM or CAM system probably also allows many more ways to machine things (process-wise) that Mazak ever thought of, making doing it on the machine much harder in some cases.
Then you have DNC systems and office layout .. space to sit & study things. I'd hate to stand and input geometry from a 10' roll of print all day <G>. Not to mention typos that may not be seen til the scrap parts are inspected.
In many cases, the parts might even fall into a family ...
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd hate to stand and input geometry from a

Cliff, I doubt you stand to do anything. I'll bet you sit to pee eh?

running
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:35:26 GMT, "Russ Wizinsky"

If you can't find them, probably some thieving employee beat you to them.
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.