Considering SolidCAM

[martin_05]

I have been having one heck of a bad time with CAMworks. I am currently considering the idea of making a move into SolidCAM. We have a Haas VF-3SS with 4th axis rotary.

What I am looking for is a real low-down on the good-bad-and-ugly about SolidCAM. I am not looking to start a mine-vs-yours argument here. I just want to know what, from the vantage point of experienced users, are the good things about SolidCAM and what I should look for during the demo period so I may understand where the warts might be.

How good is the supplied Haas post? Is it "production ready" or does it require a lot of post-delivery work to make basic parts?

How good is the simulator? Does the simulation match what actually happens at the machine or are there differences?

Does it have good options for managing and generating g-code files for parts requiring multiple setups?

How robust is it when part geometry is modified and it has to rebuild the operations?

Do the automatic feature recognition functions actually work or are they dangerous to use due to quirks?

How likely is the program to generate code that is dangerous (machine crash, tool breakage due to rapids into fixtures or table, etc.).

Is it capable of integrating calls to macros for such things as probing during a program?

How would you rate the help files and supplied documentation?

Does it work well on Vista 64?

...more later...


Thanks,

-Martin

[thebowman]

"How good is the simulator? Does the simulation match what actually happens at the machine or are there differences?"

The only way a simulator will ever truly match what actually happens is if the simulator verifies the actual G code. This is why a product like CG Tech's Vericut exists. I know of no other product that can match Vericut. Vericut is in a class by itself both in functionality and in the high price they charge for it.


"How would you rate the help files and supplied documentation?"

Anyone can download them for free from the Solidcam website. I'd rate them far better than most of the CAM supplied documentation I've seen. Their use of video is also outstanding. I'd also rate them at the top when it comes to answering e-mail and being honest.

I don't use Solidcam right now but I hope to be using it soon based on what I see in the upcoming release which is supposed to have a major speed increase and toolpath editing as well as the new iMachining.

There are many parts of Solidcam that are extremely well thought out. Suggest you watch the Solidcam 2008 video done for drill recognition. One spotting tool, many different sized holes, no need to create geometry just to get the chamfer z depth right and all done in just one operation. Solidcam is one of the few companies who actually can do drilling right and who have a easy to use interface that makes managing drilling very easy. One might make the mistake of thinking almost every CAM company would have this right by now.

I saw your post on the other forum. Nice job on revealing how screwed up CAMWorks really is. Very few people know what you know about CAMWorks. Start a blog and really make a difference... I did.

[martin_05]

I saw your post on the other forum. Nice job on revealing how screwed up CAMWorks really is. Very few people know what you know about CAMWorks. Start a blog and really make a difference... I did.

Thanks. I'm pretty tired of CAMworks problems. I realize perfection doesn't exist, but there's a limit.

Where is your blog?

-Martin

[thebowman]

Originally Posted by martin_05 Thanks. I'm pretty tired of CAMworks problems. I realize perfection doesn't exist, but there's a limit. Where is your blog? -Martin

Replied by sending you a message.

[Brakeman Bob]

Originally Posted by martin_05 How good is the supplied Haas post? Is it "production ready" or does it require a lot of post-delivery work to make basic parts?

I don't know how good the HAAS post is but I do know that SolidCAM is one of the few that let users edit their own posts. It is by using that capability that I have made our posts here (Fanuc and Heidenhain) yield code that runs first time in the machine without programmer or operator intervention. I have also made our posts "bomb proof" in that all the safety moves are in there as are restart points where things like work & tool offsets are restated.

Originally Posted by martin_05 How good is the simulator? Does the simulation match what actually happens at the machine or are there differences?

SolidVerify is very good in my experience regarding what the tool does in the metal. MachSim is useful for checking machine collisions with tool / holder fixture for movements in cut but it doesn't show positioning movements and in 5 axis that is a major failing (and the reason I would like Vericut). Saying that, by refinement of the post we have made most of the intermediate movements "safe" so it is not so important now.

Originally Posted by martin_05 Does it have good options for managing and generating g-code files for parts requiring multiple setups?

Multiple setups - yes, but weird things can happen in MachSim.

Multiple parts - the functionality is there but I have never used it. It also depends how you want to do multiple parts Command program with multiple offsets and Slave part program would not be a problem at all as it basically a post processor change. Multiple parts on a multiple fixture with full simulation, I doubt it.

Originally Posted by martin_05 How robust is it when part geometry is modified and it has to rebuild the operations?

Ha! That depends on how good your Designer is and how much they mess up the Feature Tree. Changes that delete features or changes the build order of the model will flag up as needing attention, changes that maintain Feature Tree integrity will need synchronising and recalculating. This latter happens to me all the time because I have educated our Designers. Because I take the Deigners model directly as my source model SolidCAM is very good at telling me when the CAM part is out of synch with the Designers part.

Originally Posted by martin_05 Do the automatic feature recognition functions actually work or are they dangerous to use due to quirks?

Don't know, never used them and not likely to in our line of work.

How likely is the program to generate code that is dangerous (machine crash, tool breakage due to rapids into fixtures or table, etc.).[/QUOTE]

That depends on how much effort you (or your reseller) puts into getting the post how you want it. As I said above, my post is bomb-proof but I still find things that I can improve.

Originally Posted by martin_05 Is it capable of integrating calls to macros for such things as probing during a program?

Depends what you mean. I have a probing cycle for measuring holes in the drill options in my H'hain 5 axis post. You can also insert a call to another NC program into the Job tree so if you have predefined macros they can be called that way. Or if you have a standard probing routine at the start of a program you could integrate that into the post. But probing a part and dynamically altering the code depending on the results, no (well not very easily - you could completely rewrite the post to out put #variables and drive it like that - mammoth task).

Originally Posted by martin_05 How would you rate the help files and supplied documentation?

Better than most. The videos are good and our reseller - SolidCAM UK - is very good indeed.

Originally Posted by martin_05 Does it work well on Vista 64?

I am told it does but I haven't used it (still on XP Pro SP3)

Hope this helps

Bob

[martin_05]

Originally Posted by thebowman Replied by sending you a message.

Jon Banquer???

Brother. I am not interested in what you have to say. I remember you from the usenet Solidworks list.

Have a good one.


-Martin

[martin_05]

Originally Posted by Brakeman Bob I don't know how good the HAAS post is but I do know that SolidCAM is one of the few that let users edit their own posts. It is by using that capability that I have made our posts here (Fanuc and Heidenhain) yield code that runs first time in the machine without programmer or operator intervention. I have also made our posts "bomb proof" in that all the safety moves are in there as are restart points where things like work & tool offsets are restated.

Thanks for a very informative post. I'll look deeper into SolidCAM.

-Martin

[thebowman]

"I remember you from the usenet Solidworks list."

You do?

There is no such a thing as a "usenet SolidWorks list". There are Usenet groups. Perhaps this is what you meant.

[thebowman]

"Don't know, never used them and not likely to in our line of work."

Not even the drill recognition? In all my tests so far it works really, really well and it gives you complete control over your drilled holes.

[Brakeman Bob]

Originally Posted by thebowman "Don't know, never used them and not likely to in our line of work." Not even the drill recognition? In all my tests so far it works really, really well and it gives you complete control over your drilled holes.

Well, I program brake calipers and ancillaries for motorsport applications and the drillings I have tend to be on different MAC positions - one Mac, one hole - and the hole recognition throws a right wobbly when confronted by by that. One or two MAC positions seem to work OK but 15 to 30 MACs are my norm. Also, given the very curvy nature of modern calipers I drill the galleries as one of the first jobs whilst the billet is still square and that means sometimes 100mm to the top of the hole on the part. When I tested the drill recognition (admittedly some time ago), it didn't like that either.

Now if you were to ask about Machining Processes in SolidCAM - I love 'em, especially for my awkward drilled holes. Process Templates I had great hopes for (and still do if SolidCAM ever get around to putting variables and variable manipulation into them), but for me Machining Processes are a very useful bit of technology. Mind you, they ain't perfect as i think they need the addition of string variables so that naming of jobs becomes less tedious.

I have been told great things about iMachining and I look forward to seeing it but I am almost resigned to the prospect that it will not be for our applications. Doing 5 axis work on all five faces of the part presented to the spindle raises so many choices - tilt line, tilt plane, drive & check surfaces etc. - that automating the process is a while away.

[mattpatt]

I like the way that you can modify the post processor to get the G-code you need. The GPP help file is great, and a particular member of this forum has been a huge help to me regarding getting out of some sticky situations (you know who you are), and other members have always helped out where they can.

Sidney the Solicam Professor.......that bloke's a star, and his videos have helped me out many times. I really don't know of any other cam system that offers such good advice so freely.

My parts usually have a max of around six different mac settings. And may use 1~4 different fixtures. If I add all these into the design model assembly and then select each fixture as and when it's used in the operation manager (including clamps, nuts and bolts etc), then the solid verify does a great job (in my opinion) and I can see if there's any possible clearance issues or clamping problems. It's saved me a couple of times when I've been lazy setting the clearance levels.

I'd be interested in the capabilities of 2009. I'm using R12 on SW2007. There's a few issues I have with R12, but from looking through the SC webiste it seems that at least a couple of them have been sorted in 2009.

Bob, how's the "prismatic part machining" in HSM? Remember I mentioned trying to finish a 2D part in HSM before because I liked the toolpaths between cuts...Does this strategy do what I want?

And finally iMachining. This looks great. We have the Metalex exhibition coming up in a couple of weeks so I'll have some questions to ask. They had a demo at a show a few months ago, but unfortunately I missed it due to other commitments :-(