[saturnnights]

I have their demo installed - just started to work with it seriously today, even though I've had it a couple of weeks. Anyway, it ~seems~ to be working okay - generated toolpaths on my screen, but it's "broken" by design in demo mode and won't generate gcode for me to run. I suppose it's the equivalent of RhinoCAM saying, "Trust us, it produces great results!"
I told my wife that it's like sitting in the driver's seat of a Lexus and revving the engine and having the salesguy say, "You can't actually take it out for a test drive, but it runs smooth - trust me." I have a lot of heartburn plunking down money for something I've never really used :-(
The guy from RhinoCAM's called and left messages for me twice now. I suppose I should call him back and tell him that I can't really evaluate his software...

Shoot...

Wouldn't you think that when you're going to spend a grand on some software, you'd get to see if it works? If it doesn't do what I need after I've bought it, I obviously can't return it :frown:

Mark

[ger21]

Wouldn't you think that when you're going to spend a grand on some software, you'd get to see if it works? If it doesn't do what I need after I've bought it, I obviously can't return it :frown:

Mark

Get him to give you a money-back guarantee if you can't get a functional demo. When we spent 20K on software at work, that's what we did. The first guy wasn't too happy when we sent the software back.

[Dan B]

Hi Mark,

I applaude your caution. To properly evaluate CAM software you must cut at least 1 test block. Otherwise, it's just a pretty picture on your tube.

I would talk to the Mecsoft person calling and voice your concerns. Maybe they will help you.

Dan

[HayTay]

Mark,

Talk to the sales person and see if they can arrange a time limited, say 15 - 30 day, evaluation license. It really doesn't cost them anything and has the potential to generate a sale in a few days/weeks if their product is a good as they say it is.

Hint: You may need to call in a few times to find either their "best" or "most deperate" sales person.

It's worth a try, whaddya got ta lose?

HayTay

[saturnnights]

The sad thing is that the demo looks like it will do what I need it to do, which I'm finding is pretty hard to find. :frown:

I wrote the sales guy to see what he could do for me...

[saturnnights]

Well, RhinoCAM is not inclined to offer functional demos. They will however, sell you the product and offer a 30-day money-back guarantee that it works "as promised" - which means, very simply, that there's absolutely no chance of getting your money back because it will always work as they've promised. Of course, it may not work at all like you need it to work, or with your mill, etc...

Anyway, here's my e-mail and their response:





Hello Mark,

A car dealer would not let you use the car for a period of time at your
convenience and return it! So that analogy does not really hold.

BUT...
We do offer an online demo directly from our office, which can be scheduled
at your convenience. Purpose is to make sure that our product suits your
machining needs. We try our best to determine the match before we sell you
the product.

We also do offer a 30 day money back gaurantee, if the product does not work
as promised.

As an aside, we did used to offer a trial version when we started, 8 years
ago - it was widely mis-used and I am not inclined to going back to that.

Regards,
Anita
MecSoft Corp
949.654.8163 x 101


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: RhinoCAM Basic demo


> Hi,
>
> I have your demo loaded onto my machine and was wondering if you had one
> that wasn't crippled? I can hardly evaluate the gcode output with my
system
> unless it actually generates gcode. It's rather like purchasing a car and
> only being allowed to rev the engine in the parking lot while the salesguy
> assures me that once I've paid them, I'll be happy with the way it drives
> and handles.
>
> Why not offer a time-limited demo that works? Or offer a money-back
> guarantee on the purchase...
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark North
>

[Dan B]

Wow, that just boggles my mind! Your car analogy is appropriate because all you want to do is "test drive" the software on your machine, not work with it for a month and then return it as she alludes to.

I wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't test drive it. Period. Watching someone else drive it around a parking lot is not adequate, which is exactly what an on-line demo is.

If that is the stance that these companies want to take, then they should have regional people who can come to you, sit down and program a part, and hang around to watch it cut. All the big players do this (OpenMind, Tebis, etc)

I can see taking this stance with a purely CAD software. Essentially what you see on the tube is what you get. Plot some drawings or create a rendering and you can prove out the product. CAM software is not like that. The quality of a CAM software is determined on the machine.

For what it's worth, Machining Stratigest from Vero is a downloadable CAM program that includes the ability to post and cut.

www.vero-software.com

Also, you can get a fully functional demo from WorkNC.

www.sescoi.com

These are much more expensive programs than RhinoCam, but the point is that these companies know the right way to market their product.

I personally, would have them reword the money back policy to include verbage that allows you to get your money back if you, as the customer, are not 100% satisfied, not whether it works as promised.

Dan

[HuFlungDung]

I should hope when shopping for cadcam software that I wouldn't have to go through the gcode to see if what I see on the screen is what I get on the machine. If I cannot verify the code through simulation or toolpath preview, then I don't want the software, period.

It is only necessary to ask around if the verification function for whatever package you are looking at, is in good working order.

More to the point of what one should look for is how the interface is set up to create machining processes. This is what you are going to have to look at for the rest of your days if you buy one rather pricey package, hoping that it is your last. It should only take a few days to prove out the GUI, whether you understand it, and whether you can get help from someone else to understand it.

It would take a lot of time to carefully examine many programs in depth. It takes a few weeks of everyday use to get really comfortable with any program. This means applying it to the variety of jobs that come up in your own shop. If you are a newbie to cadcam, it is just as well if you 'spin the bottle', pick one and stick with it....learn it really well. The package you pick must not be so cheap that it lacks the features you need, essentially, those are a waste of time to even bother looking at.

[Ed_R]

My biggest complaint righ tnow is in configuring the 'preview' and 'simulation' software to match that of my hardware.
Take for example yennb's testcut.zip file, it's a standard gcode file, but its; got numbers WAY TOO BIG for my machine, so I switch the sim to metric and it works fine- but I try to run it on mymachine, even after switching to metric, and uh-uh, crash-bang-boom.
Fguring al this out is going to be a real juggling act- and this is BEFORE I start learnign cad and cam programs.

[strat]

http://www.cncportal.com/downloadfree.htm
go here and sign up and get a a copy of freemill from em basically based on the same program so you can get an idea of what the other does and the nice thing ............
a freebie

[Dan B]

Hi Hu,

Theoretically you should be right. Toolpath verification should show you what the program is going to do on the machine. However, if the verification is using the CLdata file (or whatever the particular software calls it) then you are not seeing what is actually being cut. Post-processors can "make or break" a CAM program. I'm seeing this right now with my WorkNC 5X module evaluation. On the tube it looks great, but on the machine the toolpaths stutter and stall, and are borderline useless. Had I not had a working evaluation, I would have purchased it and been very disappointed (we are talking about $7500 here). I plan to evaluate it again, and do test cuts, when the next version is available.

This is the experience I am trying to share in this thread, and why I am adamant about cutting test blocks to properly evaluate a CAM package.

Dan

[saturnnights]

I should hope when shopping for cadcam software that I wouldn't have to go through the gcode to see if what I see on the screen is what I get on the machine. If I cannot verify the code through simulation or toolpath preview, then I don't want the software, period.

Heck, I don't want to go line-by-line, but just plug it into Mach3 and see what happens - I have some other, expensive, fully-working demos that don't seem to produce what they should. And I can't run RhinoCAM through a simulator because their output is so guarded - no saving and no copy/paste. Just look at it; admire the pretty colors; trust them!!

It would take a lot of time to carefully examine many programs in depth. It takes a few weeks of everyday use to get really comfortable with any program. This means applying it to the variety of jobs that come up in your own shop. If you are a newbie to cadcam, it is just as well if you 'spin the bottle', pick one and stick with it....learn it really well. The package you pick must not be so cheap that it lacks the features you need, essentially, those are a waste of time to even bother looking at.

Believe me, I'm spending the time here! I want something that will work for me and my situation - for a thousand+ dollars, I can't make a mistake

[Dan B]

Believe me, I'm spending the time here! I want something that will work for me and my situation - for a thousand+ dollars, I can't make a mistake

That's the thing about CAM software. You use it to make a living (usually). It has to be the right tool, or you will suffer, and so will your pocket book. No where is the saying "time is money" more applicable than in the metal cutting trades right now. You absolutely must know that the software you are buying is going to be not only easy to use, but produce an end product that is not going to require excessive benching because the cutter paths cannot produce a quality surface finish.

I cannot stess this enough. I have been in this trade 25 years, and I have seen enough to know that the production of efficient, quality toolpaths can mean the difference between profit and loss. Without cutting a test block, you will take your chances.

We also take this approach to buying new CNC machines. If a vendor will not let us do a test block, then qualify the result on our CMM, then we walk away. We cut test blocks before we purchased our Hermle, and we are going to cut test blocks this time with our new upcoming machine purchase.

It's simple. No test cut=no sale. We treat the software that will drive the machines with the same logic.

Dan

[HuFlungDung]

Hi Hu,

Theoretically you should be right. Toolpath verification should show you what the program is going to do on the machine. However, if the verification is using the CLdata file (or whatever the particular software calls it) then you are not seeing what is actually being cut. Post-processors can "make or break" a CAM program. I'm seeing this right now with my WorkNC 5X module evaluation. On the tube it looks great, but on the machine the toolpaths stutter and stall, and are borderline useless. Had I not had a working evaluation, I would have purchased it and been very disappointed (we are talking about $7500 here). I plan to evaluate it again, and do test cuts, when the next version is available.

This is the experience I am trying to share in this thread, and why I am adamant about cutting test blocks to properly evaluate a CAM package.

Dan

Dan,
Either I'm spoiled, or I don't know the difference , but I've never experienced the problem as you describe it, using OneCNC, or maybe I don't understand exactly what it is you are looking at. Do you mean by 'stutter and stall', a highly interpolated path that your controller cannot keep up the feedrate with (I highly doubt that), or does the post processor actually do something different than the backplot would suggest? Are the results of the backplot different than the simulation and different than the real results on the part?

[HuFlungDung]

Heck, I don't want to go line-by-line, but just plug it into Mach3 and see what happens - I have some other, expensive, fully-working demos that don't seem to produce what they should. And I can't run RhinoCAM through a simulator because their output is so guarded - no saving and no copy/paste. Just look at it; admire the pretty colors; trust them!!

Believe me, I'm spending the time here! I want something that will work for me and my situation - for a thousand+ dollars, I can't make a mistake

Saturn,
I wonder if you are just getting bogged down with details of the post processor configuration? If you are still green at cadcam and cnc programming, it makes it doubly difficult to know what good code looks like, or what configuration options are available in gcode that will still run safely on your machine.

It does not hurt to shop for the maximum value for your dollar, but I think you need to have a little faith, that what other users with similar controls have used and have working for them, is also going to work for you. You might not understand it all at the beginning, but none of us did

[Dan B]

Hi Hu,

or does the post processor actually do something different than the backplot would suggest? Are the results of the backplot different than the simulation and different than the real results on the part?

Yes, this is correct. The machine simulation shows the correct machine movement, but shows it as a fluid motion. On the machine, it is not fluid. It's definitely a post issue, but one I can't seem to get solved.

Does OneCNC verify the G-Code? In other words, do you post your path before verifying?

Dan

[HuFlungDung]

Dan,

Onecnc verifies before the code is posted.

Now, apart from standard issues to do with setup of the post, which would generally be taken care of at the beginning when setting up the software, I've never heard of any problems with differences between what is verified or simulated or previewed and what is posted for code. Mind you, we do not get in and 'mess around' with the code, so if you do that, then you would need an external verification (like OneCNC's NCSentry) to read the modified gcode. I don't know if anyone is actually doing this, but it is an optional route.

[turmite]

Hu in all the time I have been here on the zone I have never, at least to my knowledge, had a negative remark to you. I have always admired you knowledge and your willingness to help, and I still do, but let's be totally honest here. Whether paid or not you are a representative of OneCNC and they also do not allow trial periods. Is this the reason you say folks should trust the cam sofware companies to tell us whether or not their product will work for us.

I need new cadcam software and know that to get what I need I am going tohave to go to the next level. I will not however, buy any software that I can't use long enough to tell if it is going to work for me and if it is one I can learn quickly.

Mike

[Dan B]

Hi Hu,

I agree as far as positioning and vectoring is concerned. The simulation in WorkNC shows that correctly. But it's how the machine is driven there that is at issue. I have contacted Hermle directly wondering if there is a controller setting that needs to be adjusted to allow for smooth linearization (I think that's the proper word) of the simu G-code. Upon hearing that we were using WorkNC, he laughed and said that everyone has that problem. "Garbage in, garbage out" is how he put it.

Now WorkNC has been top notch for the 13 years or so that I have used it. I'm not using this forum to disparage a great piece of software. Unfortunately, for this module, they bumped their heads or something. They will get it right, of that I have no doubt (they have only been into simu5X for a couple of years).

My point is that even a trusted reputable software that I know very well warrants a test cut when new features are sold as an option. Shouldn't a completely new software that a person has no experience with warrant the same?

Dan

[HuFlungDung]

Hu in all the time I have been here on the zone I have never, at least to my knowledge, had a negative remark to you. I have always admired you knowledge and your willingness to help, and I still do, but let's be totally honest here. Whether paid or not you are a representative of OneCNC and they also do not allow trial periods. Is this the reason you say folks should trust the cam sofware companies to tell us whether or not their product will work for us.

I need new cadcam software and know that to get what I need I am going tohave to go to the next level. I will not however, buy any software that I can't use long enough to tell if it is going to work for me and if it is one I can learn quickly.

Mike

Mike,

No offense taken

I don't believe I said to trust any company's advertising hype. You look through the advertising to find out what the claims are. Then, because it is quite convenient nowadays to browse the internet and ask questions on pretty near anything under the sun, go talk to other people about it. Cut through the hype, and judge the level of user satisfaction.

The reviews given by your peers should then carry some weight, or what is the point in asking them? Sure, the user interface is subject to personal taste and prior experience (and this can be demoed), but to doubt that the gcode is any good? Come on! That kind of major fault cannot be covered up for very long, if you ask around.

If your machine is of an unusual make, it would be wise to ask around whether anyone has developed a post processor suitable for it. That is fair to be cautious about. But if there is a thousand Mach3 users running gcode from the same program as you are looking at, and you say the gcode is no good, where do you think the fault is? Did the software company send you, and you alone, a bad copy of their software, to "get you"?

For the hobbiest, I think the priority might be to spend as little as possible. Earn some money doing what you can handle with the less expensive software. There is no value in buying software that is overkill for your needs, even if it is a very capable and highly rated package.

There used to be a saying amongst the experienced amateur telescope makers, the guys who ground their mirrors by hand: Do not begin by making your last telescope mirror first. In the time it takes you to grind an 8" reflector as your first project, you could have ground a 4", a 6" and an 8".

So with cadcam software: get by with the minimum for a while. Determine that your interest is going to hold. Or, discover whether the marketplace needs your services. Or, win a lottery so you can just buy what you want, regardless of the cost