Problems with X3 regarding speeds and feeds calculator + update tool??

[neurosis]

Ive been playing with this for two days and have not found a solution nor have I found anyone that has had the same problem. I have recently installed X3 (clean install with no migration used) and then X3 mu1. I installed this fresh and clean so that my X2 install wouldnt affect X3 at all.

I am using Mill Default.mmd , Default.control, and mpfan.pst all from the initial install. I am using the default tool libraries with the default material. I have my Tools set to use "from material" for speeds and feeds. (In X2 I have created several tool libraries and material libraries that I would like to be able to pull in to X3. I have hours and hours of time invested in created these libraries.

The problem I am having, is when I try to create any tool path, pull in a tool from a tool library, right click to pull up the speeds and feeds calculator. I adjust the percentages to my liking, hit the <update> button to update the tool. Even if I hit the <calculate speed/feed> button when I close it out to go back to the parameters page none of the changes that I have made to the tool through the <update> have been saved. The plunge and retract rates are completely disregarded and 50% of the tools feed rate is entered in the boxes instead. If I turn the coolant on, it is not saved and turns back off. The only way I can get the changes to stick is to use <from tool> for the speeds and feeds setting and manually edit the tool parameters in the part file.

While this is a work around for me now, this makes my tool and material libraries useless along with the speeds and feeds calculator in X3. Has anyone else noticed this problem and what can I do to get this resolved?

Thanks.

[timmydabull]

i recently installed mu1 myself.

that explains why my coolant is always off and my speeds and feeds have changed and wont record too.

something else wierd is happening with my finish passes,the go to the edge of the pocket plunge down into the material and make finish pass with no lead in or out.

the other passes have a lead in lead out just not the finish.

weird stuff

[neurosis]

I keep hearing about allot of bugs still in MU1 for X3. The bug I am having wasnt present in the initial release of X3. Ive talked to a few people now and they have been able to duplicate the problem that i am having exactly so I am thinking that it is a bug for sure.

I tried to contact my local reseller today and was told that I would hear back from them. I have yet to hear anything. If I dont hear back by tomorrow I will call mastercam directly.

[timmydabull]

i was thinking the same thing,if it werent for these updates we wouldnt need to be on maintenance. lol

its like going to the dealership to have the oil changed,they cut a few inconspicous wires and a week later you have to come back in for repair.

[foxsquirrel]

Just do it by hand, or go to the Cimco website and use their feed and speed calculator. The MCAM guys don't really know what they are doing with the calculator any ways. CHIP LOAD is the critical parameter and they just don't seem to get it.

I dropped our maintenance because we plan to upgrade to solidworks in a couple of years, I was happy with X2 and got X3 just before the contract ran out and have not been impressed at all.

[neurosis]

Originally Posted by foxsquirrel Just do it by hand, or go to the Cimco website and use their feed and speed calculator. The MCAM guys don't really know what they are doing with the calculator any ways. CHIP LOAD is the critical parameter and they just don't seem to get it. I dropped our maintenance because we plan to upgrade to solidworks in a couple of years, I was happy with X2 and got X3 just before the contract ran out and have not been impressed at all.

I understand what you are saying "just do it by hand". Prior to using mastercam we had a seat of cimatron and the speeds and feed entries were sfm and chipload. I notice that in the newer High Speed tool paths mastercam uses the same method. I wish they would convert all of their 2d paths to this method. There would be little need for the tool and material libraries at that point. Or the speeds and feeds calculator for that matter.

Our boss has already dropped maintenance once and i had to beg him to pick it back up. With this economy I am having a very hard time convincing him to continue to pay maintenance on software that just doesnt work properly. If I would have had it my way we would still be using Cimatron but they couldnt find anyone locally that knew how to use it other than me and a few others. Since mastercam is so popular they decided to drop cimatron and give it a shot. Thats too bad.

Since I started using mastercam it seems to have been plagued with bugs of one kind or another. I use X2 MR2 mostly and will continue to use it until they get the bugs worked out of X3 but even X2 has been nothing but problems due to a very unstable operations manager. Depending on what I am doing and how many operations I start accumulating in a part file I can see data losing crashes 5 or more times a day. Crashes that are time losers due to lost data. Ive trained myself to hit the save button after every few changes. The backup utility has been my friend for sure. The icing on the cake for this last "MU" is that you have to be on maintenance to use it. So they release a version of their software that is so buggy that its almost painful to use and then require you to be on maintenance to install an update that fixes some bugs but adds others. Maybe I just dont understand what good business is. I guess when you hold this percentage of the market you can afford to do things like that. If Cimatron would give us a deal to drop mastercam and pick our maintenance with them back up I would beg my boss to go back.

[foxsquirrel]

Originally Posted by neurosis I understand what you are saying "just do it by hand". Prior to using mastercam we had a seat of cimatron and the speeds and feed entries were sfm and chipload. I notice that in the newer High Speed tool paths mastercam uses the same method. I wish they would convert all of their 2d paths to this method. There would be little need for the tool and material libraries at that point. Or the speeds and feeds calculator for that matter. Our boss has already dropped maintenance once and i had to beg him to pick it back up. With this economy I am having a very hard time convincing him to continue to pay maintenance on software that just doesnt work properly. If I would have had it my way we would still be using Cimatron but they couldnt find anyone locally that knew how to use it other than me and a few others. Since mastercam is so popular they decided to drop cimatron and give it a shot. Thats too bad. Since I started using mastercam it seems to have been plagued with bugs of one kind or another. I use X2 MR2 mostly and will continue to use it until they get the bugs worked out of X3 but even X2 has been nothing but problems due to a very unstable operations manager. Depending on what I am doing and how many operations I start accumulating in a part file I can see data losing crashes 5 or more times a day. Crashes that are time losers due to lost data. Ive trained myself to hit the save button after every few changes. The backup utility has been my friend for sure. The icing on the cake for this last "MU" is that you have to be on maintenance to use it. So they release a version of their software that is so buggy that its almost painful to use and then require you to be on maintenance to install an update that fixes some bugs but adds others. Maybe I just dont understand what good business is. I guess when you hold this percentage of the market you can afford to do things like that. If Cimatron would give us a deal to drop mastercam and pick our maintenance with them back up I would beg my boss to go back.

X3 is still quirky like X2 but I spent $14,000 on it and just cannot toss it right now. I wanted a complete package with a viable CAD side and their CAD just plain stinks. They do have the BEST toolpaths, I think the package is fine for advanced machine operators / techinicians but to integrate engineering into the platform you are waisting your time and that is what we needed a seamless path from the office to the machine. I am waisting time bouncing between autocad and mcam since the are so very different. We did look at Gibbs but their CAD was very weak during the demo, tool paths looked easier but to really optimze the process you need access to all the parameters like in MCAM. Gibbs would be good for basic operators with limited technical baground, some guys are just in love with it but that is the what the learned on so thats all they know and that is how alot of MCAM users are. If MCAM would have the doctor correct their tunnel vision and hire a hands on manufacturing engineer to help guide software developement they could be the big dog again.

[cadcam]

Well I am not sure what to tell you guys as I am not seeing some of the issues and I have been using the Feed and speed calc for allot of my programming of complex parts.Mu1 fixxed allot issues that were in X3.
As for the design side there is some stuff in the works that I really cant share at this time but revamp the intire thought of Solids in MC.

I will test a few of my computers to see if I can get the issues you are speaking of to happen.

[neurosis]

Originally Posted by cadcam Well I am not sure what to tell you guys as I am not seeing some of the issues and I have been using the Feed and speed calc for allot of my programming of complex parts.Mu1 fixxed allot issues that were in X3. As for the design side there is some stuff in the works that I really cant share at this time but revamp the intire thought of Solids in MC. I will test a few of my computers to see if I can get the issues you are speaking of to happen.

I was able to get the bug that I am experiencing made official by mastercam QC this week. I had to send a detailed explanation of how to reproduce the problem but in the end they said that it was indeed a bug and that they had been revamping that area of the software due to its current limitations. Take that for what its worth i guess.

Originally Posted by foxsquirrel I wanted a complete package with a viable CAD side and their CAD just plain stinks. They do have the BEST toolpaths, I think the package is fine for advanced machine operators / techinicians but to integrate engineering into the platform you are waisting your time and that is what we needed a seamless path from the office to the machine.

We are in the same boat pretty much when it comes to cost of software. You cant afford to buy an expensive package like this only to find out it is plagued with bugs and problems and then expect to just switch software packages. I really wish that I knew where the ball was dropped here. I have used "SEVERAL" other Cad and Cad/Cam systems and have never seen anything like this where bugs are concerned.

As far at the tool path being the best. Keep in mind that this is only "my" opinion. Having used several other cam systems including gibbs, I dont share the opinion that mastercam has the best tool paths. Some of the paths, especially some of the pocketing routines and surfacing routines, create very inefficient tool path. If you want efficient path in allot of cases you have to create a ridiculous amount of construction geometry. I dont defend gibbs tool path by the way. Cimatrons tool path was far more efficient, intelligent, and way easier once you get past the learning curve of the software. I never needed loads of construction geometry for path. It didnt require perfect chains to create path and in fact you could use geometry that wasnt even positioned close to each other to create path. Ive run head to head on the same part with someone that uses featurecam. The tool path creation in feature cam was way more efficient and way easier to create. Mastercam is good in allot of ways and there are features in it that are very beneficial but it also has allot of shortcomings. I am seeing allot of cam systems out there that are starting to leave mastercam in the dust. All just my opinions of course.

[cadcam]

Thanks for the reply. I will test this in the X3 mu1 to get to happen then I will test it in X4 that I am testing now. and let you of my findings.

[neurosis]

Originally Posted by cadcam Thanks for the reply. I will test this in the X3 mu1 to get to happen then I will test it in X4 that I am testing now. and let you of my findings.

Thats great! If you need an explanation of how to reproduce the error let me know.

[foxsquirrel]

Originally Posted by neurosis I am seeing allot of cam systems out there that are starting to leave mastercam in the dust. All just my opinions of course.

The other big problem with Mcam is the POST issues, they don't have any manuals for the X or newer that is also a big negative..........The way it looks to me, reps are making the money with post updates and training so they don't want users to be profficient at updating posts.

If you were going to buy a CAD/CAM package today what would you buy? My problem right now is due to my stupidity, I stopped at level 2 mill and now we need to make a mold for a new product and spending $3500 to upgrade is extremely hard to justify when we are not happy with X3