Right now, using Mastercam.
Having problems with program verification.
Some think using Vericut is the answer.

Some think goung UG is a better chioce, not just a "band aid" on a mid-end CAM system.

The big question is: does UG verify actual "g-code" or do you still need a backplotter to verify what goes to the machine?

We noticed that Vericut has an interface for running "inside" UG...

Thanks,
Calvin

If you need to design as well as machine then UG is good choice, but still need Vericut. If you are just taking customer files and setting tool paths, then stick with MasterCam with a stand alone verion of Vericut.
Brian

Thanks for the quick response Brian,
That is what I suspected.

Calvin.

The standard Tool Path verification in NX uses the internal tool path not the posted G code. If you opt for the IS&V (Intergrated Simulation and Verification) which shows the machine motion, this uses the G code, and may be an extra license. Depending on the bundle you buy. You may want to look at using the CAM Express from NX (Siemens) formerly UGS. This is a stand alone CAM system and much cheaper that a full blown seat of NX.

Thanks, Camster!
I didn't know there was a stand-alone version.
We will look into it for sure as well as IS&V using g-code.

Regards,
Calvin

Any idea of much Cam Express is? Yearly maintence fee?

We should be having a meeting soon with the NX rep, I will let you know what the quote is.

Here is the quote:
Cam Express is $20,000.00
NX With Advanced Machining is $26,000.00
NX CAD only is 8-12,000
Forgot to ask about maintenence fees.

wow, i knew it was alot but never guess it would be that much.


thanks!

Actually, it is cheaper than expected.
It is supposedly a "high-end" cad/cam system.
Usually, I would expect 50-100k (ie: catia,pro/e) for a system with full 3-modeling and
5-axis milling capabiblty.

First I congratulate you on your success in business. UG is a VERY expensive and VERY VERY capable program for manufacturing and when your business is at a point to require the high end software you're doing something right. I was an applications engineer for a local reseller for a while. I used UG NX in mold making and 5 axis CNC programming. Minimum cost of the multi axis CNC capable and assembly design in UG is in the $30k range. Probably another $5k for verification software. Don't forget another $10k for a post processor. Don't fart too loud near the software or it'll tack on another $5000 just because. And figure 10% per year subscription.

That being said... You can't go wrong. I much prefer the UG interface over CATIA.

One thing I haven't done in a while since I don't use Mastercam anymore... If you want to verify actual G-Code you can do reverse "post process" a g code and turn it in to geometry. Another thing you can try that I've had some success. Import a gcode in to MS excel, clean up the junk so you can isolate the XYZ coordinates, and import the file as a point cloud.

For my business I use VX and the much maligned BobCAD.

I would not rely on what you might read here...

It is too important an investment!
I amazes me that some of the guys I respect here, do not speak up when missinformation is fly'n. Another reason why you should not rely on what you see here. This is not an exhaustive discussion of the question. Most guys just don't stop by here enough to answer a question quickly.

That said, here is my sound bite:

UG is far better than MC
MC is popular, so what, so is autocad
UG can do what MC cannot, no matter how much time you spend tryin
Vericut is very expensive and is needed only by a very few CAM users
I have not needed it in 20 years of programming on a variety of CAM systems. Wanted Vericut, yes, but have not required it...
With UG, you don't need Vericut. Vericut does do some things that UG does not, but so few people use these fuctions, maybe 2% or less.

MC for 5 axis and a good Modeling program is much more than UG and not even close to the same capability, see above...
Oh I can see it coming now the MC devotees will be all over my statements, but this is the UG forum, MC users go play in your own forum...

You will not regrete a UG purchase unless of course you're not willing to learn how to use it...

OK, it's a UG thread and I'm going to get flamed by the UG proponents but UG 18 absolutely sucked (beyond belief). I could not believe how bad the user interface was. I haven't seen NX but if they didn't throw away the whole user interface, it can't be much better. I refused to work on a project because UG was the platform of choice.

Catia V5 is worlds better than anything I've seen in UG. And unless you're a shop doing direct work with a major vendor (aerospace) that forces you to use either, you can do far better with Solidworks, Mastercam and some verification package.

Don't let the relatively low price fool you. Solidworks will do 90% of what Catia will for $5K. That other 10% is so obscure that only the most insane power users ever know the difference. If you're doing the master loft for aircraft or some other really specialized work, you wouldn't be posting the questions here. I use Catia V5 daily and there is nothing I've done in there from scratch that I couldn't do in Solidworks (with less effort, less confusion and far less money). The reason I specified 'from scratch' is that V5 is better at dealing with imported wireframe geometry. Legacy wireframe data is the sole limitation I've noted in Solidworks.

BTW: Solidworks and Mastercam don't force you into maintenance contracts like UG and Catia. Take a long, hard look at the options before you hitch your wagon to something that expensive.

That's my opinion as a 25 year CAD power-user and 6 year CAD trainer.

Dear Mr Hotkey,

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/about_us/newsroom/press/index.shtml

Your experience with UG is ancient in the digital age we live in... V18 was back in 2003!
MC was at version 9 (compare apples to apples)

No doubt that Catia is great software, that is why if you do buisness with Boeing, you're going to use it, and should...

But please lets not suggest to anyone to put MC in the same league with either UG or Catia... As for the price for UG, I really don't know how they can offer a product so suppierior to MC for such a low price.

I'd like to hear your comments about UG after you see a recent version. There have been 6 or 7 major releases of their software and GUI since you saw it last...

I'm not a proponent of Catia V5 either. I seriously looked at getting licensed. The pricing of these tools is only of value if somebody is jumping through the contracts hoops of getting certified to do work for a major defense contractor. For somebody doing private R&D or work on their own products, Solidworks and Mastercam will walk all over the big-boys for much less money.

I'm not suggesting using Mastercam as a CAD system. MC is a great CAM system but a poor CAD system. Solidworks takes care of the CAD end of things.

With experience in MC9 and MCX, I sat down with a coworker who also had a similar background--and we tried to figure out a simple 3-axis cutter path in Catia V5. We couldn't do a simple profile path, after an hour of messing with it.

I'm convinced that Catia V5 is a private joke the French have sprung on us Americans and they snicker each time we open the Help. If Dassault had not purchased Solidworks, their interface would also be doomed.

With Solidworks out there, the only thing keeping the big CAD systems like UG and Catia alive, is the huge users like aerospace and automotive; companies with huge databases of parts where they have to maintain configuration (what parts went on which units) for thousands of deliverables.

As for NX, you are correct: I have not seen it. The project I was slated to work on, started in 18 and later transitioned to NX. I wanted no part of it but, hey, that's my day job (where I use V5 daily). When it comes to my money, Solidworks and Mastercam do the same for a lot less.

I know this isn't a popular view. It's no more popular where I work. People can't believe that Solidworks can really do the same models, more intuitively and export the same .stp files to the CAM system, for less money and with better help. Solidworks has better and more varied relationships within assemblies. The sketcher is easier to use than V5 and also features more types of relationships, where V5 falls short.

Somebody is shopping for a CAD/CAM solution and asked for opinions. That's my opinion. Yours may vary, see VAR for details. :D

I'd like to hear your comments about UG after you see a recent version. There have been 6 or 7 major releases of their software and GUI since you saw it last...
OK, I've just viewed the current NX preview on their website (via a link on the top of this forum). My opinion still stands: the NX interface still sucks and ironically, it's for the same reason I didn't like it back in 2002-2003. What fool designed a user interface where "Apply" in the dialog box sets the changes and "Cancel" is used to close the dialog instead of "OK"?

Did the team that wrote that interface ever use a standard piece of Windows or Macintosh software? Cancel means cancel. It doesn't mean, "I'm done with this step, let's move on."

Ref:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/flash/NX6/

Presenting NX6 / Greater Productivity / resetting the hole distance location of the bracket.

OK, I've just viewed the current NX preview on their website (via a link on the top of this forum). My opinion still stands: the NX interface still sucks and ironically, it's for the same reason I didn't like it back in 2002-2003. What fool designed a user interface where "Apply" in the dialog box sets the changes and "Cancel" is used to close the dialog instead of "OK"?

Did the team that wrote that interface ever use a standard piece of Windows or Macintosh software? Cancel means cancel. It doesn't mean, "I'm done with this step, let's move on."

Ref:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/legacy/flash/NX6/

Presenting NX6 / Greater Productivity / resetting the hole distance location of the bracket.

Well, as far as I can tell in cam express cancel does mean cancel :confused: I have a lot to learn about the functionality of NX Cam, but the interface hasn't bothered me at all. I quite like it actually. Very customizable and cleanly laid out. Not sure exactly what was happening in that demo, but OK seems to get the job done for me.......

Obviously Donkey_Hotey is "Master Can't" bigot, and can not be reasoned with. He has not tried NX6, if he had he would see that cancel means cancel. Let's see him manipulate a model as easily as Cam Express can, because Cam Express comes with all of Synchronous Technology, with a starting price under $7500. As far as service contracts, MC makes you buy the next release. I have been programming for over 25 years, and have written code by hand, CII, Bravo, APT, MC9 (what a joke) and a few others, and NX beats the snots out of anything I have ever used in the past. Those who ***** and whine about NX, never really used it, or make simple square parts with a few holes in it…

Obviously Donkey_Hotey is "Master Can't" bigot, and can not be reasoned with.


Trained on UG 18
Daily user of Catia V5
Licensed owner of a seat of Solidworks
Licensed owner of a seat of Mastercam X
Spent 6 years doing CAD systems training for a major aerospace contractor

I've been doing CAD and CAM systems for 26 years. It would be nice if you could really dismiss me as a Mastercam bigot, huh? :D

FWIW: I'm not a huge fan of Mastercam. It gets the job done but it's got its own interface issues. I was just saying that for the small business, I didn't see anything in UG that Mastercam and Solidworks couldn't do for half the money.

Maybe I got lucky, but Solid Edge ST and NX Cam Express 6 (3 axis + turning) cost me quite a bit less than it would have cost for Solidworks and Mastercam.

It is true, cost is no longer a barrier to getting UG. Even for the small enterprize. My last job with a high end 5 axis machining company, they were doing fan blades on a Hermle cnc. Their Mastercam programmer was able to get toolpath but: the code was really inefficient. Poor surface finish, and the cycle time was terrible. In contrast, the company ended up buying hypermill that runs inside Solid Works. The point I am making here is, MC could not perform on these parts. Had no choice but look elsewhere. Talk about buyers remorse, with 3 seats of MC they felt cheated by MC and their $60,000 investment. Hyermill runs inside Solid Works. The company owners were really good with SW. So that really affected their evaluation. The problem with determining compatability with SW as the most important feature of a CAM system is that it ignored the features of UG CAM side. Afterall as good as UG is at CAM, and solids machining, or any combination of surfaces and wireframe, it may be even better at CAD. I don't think that SW has anything on UG on that side... On the contrary UG has a great deal on nearly everything else on the CAD side. This is why Nissan for instance is talking very seriously about migrating their product developement over to UG next year...
Remember UG started as CAM, neglected it for awhile and focused on the CAD side, develping it as good as anything else out there. Recently nearly all their improvements have been to improve the user interface on the CAM side.

I am happy to be back with my favorite CAD/CAM system: NX4 & NX6!