What does the word "best" mean.......

[turmite]

In regards to cad/cam software. What does the word best mean?

There have been several threads and polls that address comparisons between existing cad, cam or cad/cam packages. These threads all seem to end the same way, with with everyone voicing their preferred system and touting it's attributes. I would like for us to take a little while and discuss exactly what it is we are searching for in a cad, cam or combo system.

I don't want to do a poll since it is so restrictive. What I would like for everyone interested to do is list the features you need or want in a system.

Comment on pricing and how that plays in a decison for purchase.
1. Student? If a student is available should it be permanent?
2. Limited 3 axis?
3. Full 3 axis?
4. Additional module pricing...could include extra axis or features...good/bad?
5. Upgrades...free....charge?
6. Support.....free....charge?

Comment on features
1. There is so much confusion here I don't even know where to start asking?
Just give as much info as you can. What should the following list of features include within each section?

a. 2d machining
b. 3d machining
c. Roughing Strategies
d. Finishing Strategies
e. Re-Machining both rough and finish
f. Drilling

This is of course just a starting point but take each of these and expound on them. I am limited in my knowledge of what a 3d package should include and the one I use may or may not have the same features that you might thing are necessary. What are they.


Above all, do not name a software package. This is not to compare but to determine what the mindset is about a cad/cam package.

Mike

[Cam Nerd]

What I value in a 3D system.. Since this is what propmted this...

1) Speed of calculation, and loading time of files and data.. I don't want to wait hours on end for a toolpath
2) batch processing... see #1
3) I only really need 1 roughing technique (offset). But I need options on how the offsetting occurs ie.. Model offset or boundry or material stock offset
4) unlimited amount of rest roughing, without cutting air.
5) I also need rest roughing not be limited by tool geometry. I want to rough with whatever tool shape I want, and then rest rough with 4 other tools if needed without restriction of geometry
6) Boundries for tool containment that are smooth and easy to generate and that I can edit easily, so I do not have lifting along a contained area.
7) Many ways to pencil machine, with different tool geometry Ball, Bull, Flat end mills
8) Editing the toolpath after the fact without recalculating. ie, removing a certain area, or limiting how deep a tool is going
9) Tool holder and shank protection so they do not collide with either the model or the rough stock. The software should know this and not cut, not simply paint the model red when it happens.
10) editing lead in moves globally or have specific control of lead in moves without recalculating
11) optimized output that runs fast on newer controls with the highspped functions. Namely being able to tolerance the spacing of each coded point without have to change the overall toolpath tolerance to get the proper output

[NC Cams]

I have this feeling that until/unless a person has to rely upon a CAD package for their livelihood, the "BEST" package will be the one that they have the most expertise and or training in.

I do not know of very many CAD designers who are proficient in a variety of disciplines. Surely, however there are some out there and they would have a better cross section of knowledge than any dedicated user of any particular package.

MOst certainly, there are CAD packages that do a better job of this versus that. Perhaps it ultimately will eveolve/devolve to a MAC/PC sort of discussion in that each will have its own supporters and/or detractors.

This was one reason why I shied away from learning a CAD program unitl i abosluitely had to. I was in the industry about the time that mechanical drawing was dying and CAD was exploding. Almost every year, a new version was coming out and the old being replaced by the new. At that point, I found a simple program to do my simple drawing needs and worked with pros when it came to having CAD for the professional tasks.

Worst of all, there was a lot of backwards incompatibility as well as platform to platform incompatibility. It got so bad in the auto industry that the once accepted IGES insterchanges that at one time WERE acceptable, became intolerable. You got forced into having to buy or lease a specified package and work in parent language ONLY or else you got no chance of doing subcontract work for the OEM's.

Did it make for better parts or faster delivery? Not realy. It raised costs and forced suppliers to duplicate costs by buying or liscensing duplicitious CAD seats because there were no longer paper drawings issued - only parent language files and, if you didn't have the parent CAD you had to pay someone to print/interpret the drawing for your CAD system of choice - if you were lucky and/or smart, you had a CAD package that worked with your major customers and didn't have to buy a redundant system just to survive.

The purpose of a DRAWING at one time was to generate an unambiguous description of what you wanted in hard copy format. Now, you have to spend a fortune just to be able to translate the electronic data into something that a shop guy can lay out in front of him on the workbench in order to make the part.

Seems like something got lost in the translation from paper to paperless engineering drawings.

[turmite]

NC you brought up some great points, the best I think is related to the cart driving the horse. That is one of the reasons for this thread. What will make it better? I do use cad and cam to at least attempt to make a living and quite honestly it has been hard. I guess what I wanting to see here is the ability to make some sense of all the packages, what they offer, and why x is better than y, though I really don't want this to become a product bashing or support thread.

Mike

[JROM]

I had this all done and somehow lost it in the preview screen. WELL here we go again. Most of the high end 3D Cad Cam systems where developed by big arospace companys to manage very large data bases like a whole 747 aircraft. With a true 3D system you can place a WCS at any angle and any position on a master model of the whole 747 and start designing your part. This is a HUGE advantage when you are trying to package a very complex design. You can see how your part fits in with everything around it. I have run a few of these large 3D systems over the years and I can say the amount of time nessary to learn these systems is directly in proportion to the capabilty of the system. For most machine shops buying one of these systems would be like swating flys with a 12 gage shotgun.
Most machine shops want to make parts so the just need to deal with one part at a time. Most of the 2.5D systems out there do a pretty good job at doing just that. You need to ask yourself these questions. Does the software do the kind of work I need to do? How is the support system? Very important in startup (hand holding). How does the system handle imported files? does the system have PROVEN post processers for my machines? How often is the software upgraded to the latest and greatest stuff out there? As for how well any given system will work for you the answer is always SEAT TIME.
The more you use it the better it works. When you look at software find out how many seats they have running. That is a real way to see which package is at the head of the curve. And then there is cost. Take as big a bite as you can, because if you have it you will use it.

[krustykrab]

This is too vast and general of a topic.

What is good for one may not be good for another.........period.

Most people have already come to terms with their relationship with their cad/cam software, and realize that the boss isn't just going to revamp the department because of a few quirks or must-haves.

And, to be real honest, classifying a cad software and a cam software together, really isn't fair at all, since both really have nothing to do with each other except for getting a usable file from one to the other, which is really the distributors problem.

My suggestion is that if someone has a problem or concern with how their software works, then refer to their dealer or related forum.

Sorry "Turmite", but I have to say that this thread would provide for and endless number of pages of insight not really directed at any one specific topic.

Better to post into the appropriate forums, with specific software in mind.

[MrWild]

Originally Posted by krustykrab Sorry "Turmite", but I have to say that this thread would provide for and endless number of pages of insight not really directed at any one specific topic.

I say differently. Reading pages of insight is revealing. What I'd like to see is what was in the first post describing what the thread was to be about, and then not carried over in the second post. When someone says, "I use X, Y, or Z program and I like it, it works for me." I want to know who they are. Not "who" but what they represent to their shop. Are they designing a bit from a customers bar napkin doodle, or are they simply loading a file from their customer and letting the program crunch the numbers? Are they experienced from a technical school where they earned an AS in NC, and then got into the program they are defending at their first shop, or are they owners hat were forced into buying and learning the program they grabbed cold?

I guess I want to know a bit of the life experiences of the reviewer. This will let me compare their circumstances to my own. This is also important information to a guy looking at a system that can be as cheap as a few hundred dollars or well over 20k. What kind of work, what machines, and how much time is spent in the chair versus standing by the machine all give more clues to the weight I would give to each person's insight to his CAM of choice.

This to me is important and I'd read the thread in it's entirety.

Everyone has seen the person that claims Office over Word Perfect and vice versa. When pressed you learn it is the one they started with and became familiar with. Once familiarity reins, it becomes hard and confusing to figure another progrram out, so it becomes not as good as what is familiar. Due to this, I'd also like to know what other experience has been present n the person's history.

[turmite]

Originally Posted by krustykrab This is too vast and general of a topic. What is good for one may not be good for another.........period. Most people have already come to terms with their relationship with their cad/cam software, and realize that the boss isn't just going to revamp the department because of a few quirks or must-haves.If that is the case, then there would never be any development of new .....well, anything. In addition, there are lots of bosses out there that have to decide every day whether to purchase one system over the other. I want to know what makes the difference in which is chosen. And, to be real honest, classifying a cad software and a cam software together, really isn't fair at all, since both really have nothing to do with each other except for getting a usable file from one to the other, which is really the distributors problem.krusty you needed to have read all the thread. I did say, cad, cam or combo. My suggestion is that if someone has a problem or concern with how their software works, then refer to their dealer or related forum.Is that dealer going to help......free or fee! Sorry "Turmite", but I have to say that this thread would provide for and endless number of pages of insight not really directed at any one specific topic.That may be true for you, but not necessarily for me, or even others. Better to post into the appropriate forums, with specific software in mind. Naw......wanted some general thoughs...just like are coming. Even your post gives insight!

krusty my replies to your comments were not to be a put down because I am just not that kind of person. I just wanted to help you understand that so far, the thread is doing what I want. Thanks for the post.

Mike

[turmite]

I promise I won't comment on every post, but I did miss this one and Cam Nerd posted exactly what I wanted to see. Thanks Cam.

Mike

Originally Posted by Cam Nerd What I value in a 3D system.. Since this is what propmted this... 1) Speed of calculation, and loading time of files and data.. I don't want to wait hours on end for a toolpath 2) batch processing... see #1 3) I only really need 1 roughing technique (offset). But I need options on how the offsetting occurs ie.. Model offset or boundry or material stock offset 4) unlimited amount of rest roughing, without cutting air. 5) I also need rest roughing not be limited by tool geometry. I want to rough with whatever tool shape I want, and then rest rough with 4 other tools if needed with restriction of geometry 6) Boundries for tool containment that are smooth and easy to generate and that I can edit easily, so I do not have lifting along a contained area. 7) Many ways to pencil machine, with different tool geometry Ball, Bull, Flat end mills 8) Editing the toolpath after the fact without recalculating. ie, removing a certain area, or limiting how deep a tool is going 9) Tool holder and shank protection so they do not collide with either the model or the rough stock. The software should know this and not cut, not simply paint the model red when it happens. 10) editing lead in moves globally or have specific control of lead in moves without recalculating 11) optimized output that runs fast on newer controls with the highspped functions. Namely being able to tolerance the spacing of each coded point without have to change the overall toolpath tolerance to get the proper output

[tobyaxis]

Originally Posted by NC Cams I have this feeling that until/unless a person has to rely upon a CAD package for their livelihood, the "BEST" package will be the one that they have the most expertise and or training in. I do not know of very many CAD designers who are proficient in a variety of disciplines. Surely, however there are some out there and they would have a better cross section of knowledge than any dedicated user of any particular package. Most certainly, there are CAD packages that do a better job of this versus that. Perhaps it ultimately will evolve/devolve to a MAC/PC sort of discussion in that each will have its own supporters and/or detractors. This was one reason why I shied away from learning a CAD program until I absolutely had to. I was in the industry about the time that mechanical drawing was dying and CAD was exploding. Almost every year, a new version was coming out and the old being replaced by the new. At that point, I found a simple program to do my simple drawing needs and worked with pros when it came to having CAD for the professional tasks. Worst of all, there was a lot of backwards incompatibility as well as platform to platform incompatibility. It got so bad in the auto industry that the once accepted IGES insterchanges that at one time WERE acceptable, became intolerable. You got forced into having to buy or lease a specified package and work in parent language ONLY or else you got no chance of doing subcontract work for the OEM's. Did it make for better parts or faster delivery? Not realy. It raised costs and forced suppliers to duplicate costs by buying or liscensing duplicitious CAD seats because there were no longer paper drawings issued - only parent language files and, if you didn't have the parent CAD you had to pay someone to print/interpret the drawing for your CAD system of choice - if you were lucky and/or smart, you had a CAD package that worked with your major customers and didn't have to buy a redundant system just to survive. The purpose of a DRAWING at one time was to generate an unambiguous description of what you wanted in hard copy format. Now, you have to spend a fortune just to be able to translate the electronic data into something that a shop guy can lay out in front of him on the workbench in order to make the part. Seems like something got lost in the translation from paper to paperless engineering drawings.

I share the same facts and opinions as NC Cams. With the exception that I was in High School when the CAD Boom started. After two years (4 semesters of Mechanical-Drafting ) I was forced into CAD by my Teacher because of the new age of Drawing Communication. My first CAD was VersaCAD .02. Then AutoCAD by my Senior year.

CAM Nerd has the Facts of what one should look for in a CAD/CAM Software.

As things changed in the Engineering world CAM was now the new software to learn. You can guess what happened after that LOL.

Sorry for naming a few CAD Softwares.

Cheers!!!!!!

[JROM]

Someone in this thread said that Cad was unrelated to the Cam.
You could not be more wrong! The person who designs a part may not have any idea what information is needed to make the part. A 3D model is not always the geo. you need to make the part. So a good programer needs to know how to extract the features from whatever file he is given. For most parts a 2D wire frame is all you need. Also when cutting surface files you may need to extend or trim surfaces to get the result your looking for at the machine. A good Cam programer MUST also be a good CAD driver. And a good Cad package is a primary feature of a good CAM system.
Another guy said that you tend to favor the system you know the best. I think that is very true. I once was working for a new startup company that wanted to make high end pistons for racing motors. I was tasked with researching software for design and manufacturing. I looked at about a dozen defferent packages and combinations of packages. I won't tell you what I picked in the end but I will tell you that looking back it turned out that I had chosen the same software that a majorty of people were starting to move toward. I'll give you a hint. Now a days if you can't work with solids your screwed big time. Everyone is designing in solids and if you can't work with them you have excluded your self from about 85% of the market. Almost every software company has adopted the Parasolid kernal into there software and the ones that didn't are falling by the wayside.

[SRT Mike]

For me, the best CAM software is...

The MOST important thing is that it makes EFFICIENT use of the machines time. If I watch a part machine and say "Hey, its doing something stupid - it is wasting time, it should not be doing X, it should do Y instead!" that means there is a failure in the softwares abilities. Assuming its not a mistake the user made. The CAM software exists to help us create G-code that would be tedious by hand. I've had CAM packages do stupid things like retract in the Z axis all the way to the top before it moves over to the next drill location. Or do a slow move to a position when it could have done a rapid. Or use line-segments to follow an arc instead of arc-fitting. Or fail to keep the tool at a constant chip-load during 3D machining, leaving an extremely inefficient use of the machine. I've seen programs straight out of the CAM software take 5 hours to run, then complete in 2 hours after the G-code was optimized. I've seen needless toolchanges take place, because the CAM software decided to prioritize another machining operation with a new tool that could have been done with the current tool before doing a change, only to switch back to the old tool and do more machining later.

I've seen guys with complex parts go out and buy super expensive machines to "run the program faster", but you look at how the machine is cutting their part and you think "what the hell is going on - thats a way inefficient way to cut that part!". Unfortunately many people dont consider this - they dont consider whether the CAM software is making good use of their $500,000 machine, they only consider whether it makes their g-code writing job easier.



Beyond the above, a CAM package must be stable. It should use the standard windows look-and-feel guidelines. It should have a standard toolbar and have an intuitive design. It should not be written for experts of the software, it should be written so that experts know how to get expert level tasks done, and also new users can get new user tasks done efficiently. It should provide an accurate simulation component that shows what will ACTUALLY happen on the machine, not just a red line intersecting a rotating green line to represent cuts. It should present all the tasks that make up 'machining' to the user such that you are not overwhelmed with options that only a select few will ever need to adjust, but it should not hide those things in layers of obscure menus either, so that the experts can get to the features they need. It should be configurable and able to conform to the workflow of the user, NOT force the user to coform to it.


And I'd say that in general, CNC Machining is a pretty simple subject. If a piece of software requires weeks of training at a cost of thousands of dollars, the authors of the software have failed to make it easy to use and user friendly.


My .02 anyway!