Too Many CAM Options?

I have spent many years in the CAD and CAM software industries. First with AutoCAD in 1982, then with Pro Engineer in the early 90's. Then in 1995, I embraced Solidworks and Mastercam.

One of the observations I have made about software development is that it parallels Pareto's 20/80 rule almost to the letter. Successful CAD developers are those who are able to identify the most frequently used commands in a design or production environment and are able to help users drive those commands in a simple, transparent environment that is virtually automatic and unconscious.

Sorta-like driving a car after 30 years behind the wheel. You don't think about it any more; you simply do it.

Competition however, can alter that. I've seen some great 3D solid modelers get compromised by clutter created needlessly by pressure from the sales department. A competing vendor has a feature that's not really great and not really of any practical use but the competition demands that a response be made. Plop! There's another icon cluttering the monitor.

I mention this because I've seen lots of cam software packages evolve over the last 15 years and they all seem to have something of value. Which to choose? Keep it simple.

One of the things I remember about the Mastercam group is that first and foremost, they were machinists, later they became software developers and their hands on skills made them effective. I'm not sure if that is still the case but it was important to me then.

Second is the ability to acquire G code generators consistent with the skill of the user. It's going to take an operator a few years to grow into a CNC environment.

It makes no sense to me to buy an expensive CNC milling package that has every feature known and enormous capability and then hand it over to an experienced machinist with little or no CNC experience.

Better to buy a lest costly watered down 2D version of the same software and when he's exploited it, then and only then invest your money in a more advanced version. He won't be as easily intimidated and you won't have money tied up in non-productive software.

Lastly, I'd avoid any package that pretend to be both a 3D solid modeler and a G-code generator. The two domains are sufficiently different, in my opinion, that any attempt two kill two birds with one stone compromises the hunt and the results. Pick a good 3D Solid Modeler. Pick a good but seperate CNC software package. Then make certain that the import-export capabilities of both exist in harmony so that they can work together without conflict.

Lastly, and this is important, make certain that you include your designers and machinists in the conversation when selecting a candidate.

L.J.

I have to respectfully dissagree with you on a coulple of points. This is not a case of right or worng, because your points are quite valid and could be more valid than mine depending on the individual people involved, their talents, and circumstances.

1st point: "It makes no sense to me to buy an expensive CNC milling package that has every feature known and enormous capability and then hand it over to an experienced machinist with little or no CNC experience"

I think that the opposite is true that it makes nosense to put someone with little or no machining experience in front of a CAD/CAM system. Any reasonably computer literate person can become reasonably competent at operating a CAD/CAM software in about a month. Not an expert, but competent. I don't care how smart you are, it takes about 4 years to become a competent machinist. If you don't know what you want the cutter to do, it makes no difference how good you are with the software, you are going to program junk if you are lucky, and break the machine if you are not.

2nd point: "Lastly, I'd avoid any package that pretend to be both a 3D solid modeler and a G-code generator. "

Maybe it has been a long time since you have worked with Mastercam. Mastercam has an excellent solids modeling package. It is easy for the person who already is making wireframe to use that wireframe to generate solids, and certainly easier than having to learn 2 software packages that don't operated the same way and then have to transfer your files back and forth bettween the two. The only reasons I see for having a separate design package is if you are designing complex assemblies, and/or you have two different people doing the work concurrently.

There are two other areas where we agree totally. Clutter!!! I am in the process of going from Mastercam V9 to X2. I do not like the new interface. Lets just take a bunch of simple commands and double the number of keys you have to hit in order to execute them, that is if you can find them after their having been renamed. I am sure I will like all of the great new features once I get used to the interface. Now, where was that icon?

Yes! Include the designers and machinists in the selection of software. Failure to follow this advise can be very costly. It can even put an extra load on your human resources people while they are looking to replace the engineer and machinist who just left because they didn't like the software that was just a little cheaper than the right one.

I want to make it clear that while I know how to use most all the machines of that craft, and own some of my own, I am not a machinist.

I am, however, a mechanical designer with many years of experience in manufacturing. The knowledge of how things are made is a powerful advantage.

Of more relevance however, is my appreciation for the things that influence how people show up in the world, how they learn and of the attachments that can get in the way of future growth.

My reluctance to give a costly CNC software like Mill level 3 to really experienced machinist is built on several arguments.

Typically, the most experienced machinist is the one the shop depends on most for getting demanding jobs done. That proficiency will almost certainly be impacted by so drastic a change in how he does things. The company's productivity will most certainly be impacted adding more expense to the exercise.

Also, if he the least bit proud of his ability, his attachments to his way of doing things will most certainly have to be overcome in order for the new way to be mastered.

The Buddhists have a point of view that "It's out attachments that keep us stuck". I agree. Absolutely!

Not all people can let go of behavior that has made them secure or even successful, especially in front of a group of peers. And, the more important it is for them to look good in front of others, the more likely they will be to resist change.

This human factor is rarely considered by management when making choices. The awkwardness you have acknowledged with the new Mastercam interface is one demonstration of this principle of attachments and furthers my argument that incrimental change is less confronting and more likely to succeed.

Besides, there is rarely a cost penalty associated with an upgrade.

"By the inch its a cinch. . . . by the yard it's hard"

L. J.

I've seen some great 3D solid modelers get compromised by clutter created needlessly by pressure from the sales department. A competing vendor has a feature that's not really great and not really of any practical use but the competition demands that a response be made. Plop! There's another icon cluttering the monitor.

I have to agree I'm sure that people that say otherwise. I'm use to minimal usage of icons. Company where I'm contracting now demands that all the icons be present on the screen, this reduces actual working area.

I have to agree with mastercam, it was kinda bottom-up.

now what you call g-code generator that pretty much shareware, unless you talking about posts.

Laughing Jaguar make many good points. Try going to a CNCzone.com there Cam software forum and get some input direct from users.

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Jim C

Gibbs, Bob Cad -Junk, Junk no matter what you use it on. Why waste time & money learning something so limited in function. MaterCam is okay for the most part very poor in the EDM department though. I personally like Pro E and Esprit the best of all worlds great post generator also in Esprit!!!

I used to use Pro E in the early 90's. That was before the SolidWorks onslaught. One had to pay $60K for one seat, with no manufacturing module, no post processors, a Silicon-Graphics workstation running UNIX and training for a dozen guys.

Yes it was frightfully expensive but it was the only game in town and they knew it! We weren't exactly excited with the manufacturing module nor the outrageous prices the charged for customizing a post processor but the CAD program was absolutely mind blowing so we bit the bullet.

I see you have Pro E and Esprit, which is what I suggested earlier: two seperate programs, each optimized for the ball park they will play in.

That has to be sweet!