[HuFlungDung]

I've been using OneCNC for several years now. I think they call it "OneCNC" because the developer liked an all-in-one solution himself. Imagine that, a developer who actually uses his own program to go out and play with his DMG

Of course, the Cadcam has to be capable of doing what you want for an integrated solution to be adequate. And to be clear, there are some free-form surfaces that I would have difficulty designing with OneCNC, but for the real world stuff I deal with, OneCNC has the tools I need for 3 and 4 axis work.

Using one system of course, could (should) make one very proficient at using all the software functions of that system to the max. After a while, you become so intimately acquainted with all the tricks and quirks that you can use it as easily as you use all ten of your fingers to type with

So IMO, simplification is better, so long as it works for you. Understanding what you are doing may in fact, allow simplification to work, rather than relying on a large assortment of gui icons to solve your problems by means of someone else's magic.

With the current state of OneCNC XR3, one could conceivably take any family of parts, create one program group, then import a brand new part (2d wireframe or 3d model or a patchwork of surfaces,solids and geometry) and update the existing processes to use the new model or geometry. You cannot beat that for convenience.

[cgosnell]

There seems to be some disagreement on the meaning of 'Integration".

I would suggest that unless you are importing / exporting a 'neutral' file, the CAM system is integrated. So Solidworks with Camworks is just as integrated as Pro-E / Pro-Mfg.

When doing die and mold work, I am loathe to give my vendor my native CAD model, and try to work excusively with STEP files. This freezes the design from indavertent changes, and limits how much data is given to the vendor.

For Pro-E for example, to machine the die using a Native Pro-E file, the vendor needs the die model, the die blank model, and the die cavity model, because they are all used in the definition associatively with the die in Pro-Engineer. I'm not ready to give out that information to my vendor.

Internally, if you are not using a PDM system, (especially with Pro-E) you can be in for a world of trouble. The Pro-Mfg application will save over any and all models used in the manufacturing file and may 'update' your die model.

Applications such as Pro-Collaborate, and Windchill PDM-link seem to be the best solutions for exchanging data (with history) with Vendors and Pro-Engineer.

CAM systems that can take in a STEP file, create the NC sequences, and then replace the STEP file with a newer version without major problems seem to be the way to go.

I'm going to throw in my $0.02 here and comment that the CAM system (for mold work) that most impressed me is DELCAM. But, I would also like to see how the new Pro-Toolmaker suite works also.

[Bill Grant]

Integrated CAM is meaningless. What's needed in most machine shops is technology that works well with other people’s cad data and allows you to change any part modeled in any system with ease. If you work in a machine shop just because you have access to the feature tree used to design the part model doesn't mean you can easily understand someone else’s design intent and modify their part model. The integrated solutions being sold by Charles both run in history based modelers. History based modeling is going to be rendered obsolete because history based modeling doesn't work well with imported geometry or with someone else’s design.The real answers can be found in new technology being presented by Siemens, which doesn't depend on a history tree and doesn't treat imported geometry from another cad system any differently. There are plenty of videos on YouTube which show how this new technology works.

[John_B]

I would greatly like to see an application available that would be in the range affordable by smaller organizations, something like the price range of MasterCam of GibbsCAM with real broadscale integration of CAD & CAM. Not much for the thought of having this on the control though, as one person seemed to suggest (I may have misread it), I want my machine making chips while I program elsewhere.

I have worked extensively in Inventor, and really like the ability to add the Welding and Machining layer to an assembly, but that package could really use the Machining layer added to the part level more than the assembly level. No CAM that I've ever seen that integrates worth a *$%^$%.

I am relatively new to using Solidworks, and have only had time to work the the CAM plugin for this package, but as a couple of others have pointed out it doesn't work very well. I think that Mastercam X3 and Solidworks may be more functional as told by the local distributor (he would never exagerate, would he), but have not laid hands on yet.

CATIA functionality is great from what I've been told by a college mate of mine, but wow the price tag!

I have to admit that CAD/Solid Modeling as well as CAM software has made some major strides though in the last 10 year for instance, and I wouldn't be surprised to see discussions like this one lead to some real solutions that are what we're really hoping for in the next 3-7 years.

M2C,
John

[Mike Stevenson]

while NX is a lot more robust it still falls short of Catia.

When was the last time you used NX?

[Dennis Bohlke]

Many years ago I thought working with G-code files on a machine was kind of archaic.

I thought it was foolish to start with a perfectly good drawing and then convert it into a list of coordinates, so I integrated the machine control directly into a CAD program.

I called the program SuperCam somewhat out of ignorance. It works directly from drawings in that there are no G-code files necessary. The current version of the program is named SuperCamXp and it works via the USB port and the USB CamPod which I designed and manufacture.

The machine attached to the program follows the drawing. The machine motor control signals are derived directly from the graphic items in the drawing, NOT from a G&M code file derived from the drawing.

The main advantage is that the time it takes to go from a drawing to the machine making the part is significantly reduced. One whole step of the process is eliminated.

The advantage of this is that there is no middleman CAM program to deal with.

Another advantage is that the tool path can be drawn and executed as needed.

Another advantage is that the tool path can be graphically edited and executed immediately.

Another advantage is that the tool path execution is real time graphically animated so you always know where and what the machine is doing.

Another advantage is that machine operators do not have to be educated in the intricacies of G&M code files. It becomes a matter of drawing and cutting.

I made it so simple that illiterate operators can be quite effective machine operators.

Another advantage is that there is no need to have a G&M code programmer on staff to create programs to run the machine tools from.

Another advantage is that it usually takes less than an hour to train someone on how to use it. This can be really helpful if you are in the business of making and selling machines.

Now I know this method is not everyone’s cup of tea, especially those with G&M coding experience because it is way too simple to use. But for those that are new to machine tool operations, it just seems the way it is suppose to be.

The improvement to productivity is about the same as going from a typewriter to using a word processor.

I did not ignore G&M code files, they also can be imported and executed. They also can be created from the drawings. Experience has shown me there is a time and place for them as well.

Currently SuperCamXp is being used to run Plasma & Flame Torch Tables, Small and Large Milling Machines, Lathes, Routers, Lasers, Water Jets, Engravers and Glue Dispenser machines.

I went the extra yard and instead of integrating CAM into a CAD program, I skipped the CAM part and integrated the CAD program into the machine control program. It seems to have been a unique idea.

Dennis
www.super-tech.com

[HuFlungDung]

Dennis,
Not to denigrate what you have accomplished, but by that one step required of your users to "draw offset lines for the toolpath", you have effectively skipped what useful CAM is all about, and that is making toolpaths offset automatically, in 3d as well as 2d.

I don't view gcode as a handicap. Its actually as brief and concise as can be until such time as we can machine from equations. Then that will be better

[Dennis Bohlke]

Like I said there are times when gcode has its advantages, machining 3d profiles is one of them.

From my point of view, the machine motion control should be integrated into the CAD or CAM programs.

I can see the day when you will just click on a button in your CAD or CAM program and be presented with the machine control console. At that point you will be directly in control of the machine. Flipping between tool path design and machine control will be as simple as changing the focus from one form to another.

When implemented the underlying tool path coordinates will probably be transparent to the user. It’s a heck of a lot easier to visualize a graphical presentation than a blizzard of node coordinates in a text file.

I do have an Offset command in my program that at this point it is only 2D. I also have Scale, Rotate, Move, Copy, Erase, Array, and Mirror. You can also change order in which the graphic items will be executed and the direction of the motion.

There is also drawing commands for Lines, Leadin, Leadout, Circles, Arcs, Points and Text.

Now the CAD program I created is juvenile at best when compared to a commercially available CAD program. Currently I can only dream about what it would be like to integrate machine control into a full featured CAD/CAM program, but then I think that’s a derivative of this thread.

My objective has been to go from drawing to machine motion as seamlessly as possible. I have been thinking more in terms of computer controlled power tools than traditional CNC machine tools.

When it comes to working directly from equations. I find it a whole lot easier to draw five holes in a plate than to describe that with an equation. I have played around with equations that describe the surface of water after a raindrop hits it, that stuff is just fascinating to me.

I do have an appreciation for gcode, I made it so when I work with it I can see the graphical presentation of the tool path. When I highlight lines of the text script, the corresponding part of the graphically presented tool path is also highlighted or you can flat out turn off the graphical display.

I like the idea of being able to draw lines and instantly covert them into gcode so much that I made it so I could do that. Essentially that is integrating CAM features into a CAD program. There are real advantages to being able to do that.

Dennis
www.super-tech.com

[jeep534]

sounds like the dual screen hurco control

archie =) =) =)

[apache405]

Apache405: Didn't I read somewhere that SolidWorks had purchased CircuitWorks?

Yes they did. My understanding of it is that you can import the schematic from orcad/similar and then it will make a model that can be placed into an assembly and the wire routing stuff can be used, etc. BUT I did not get the impression that it could do modification of the schematic from inside solidworks.

It would be nice if solidworks could do some electrical property simulations like capacitance, which would streamline my sensor design process big time.

[NexGenMfg]

FlungDung:

I am still struggling with the right language to describe the different schemes for CNC programming software that now exist, and invite suggestions from anyone on better terms. I see CAD/CAM falling into three categories:

1. Stand-Alone CAD/CAM (CAM-centric software with CAD developed by the CAM company: Mastercam, Surfcam, etc.).
2. All-In-One CAD/CAM (CAD-centric software with CAM developed by the CAD company (Catis, ProE/ProMan, UG, etc.).
3. Integrated CAM (CAM-centric software that runs inside of a mainstream CAD system: CAMWorks, HSMWorks, hyperMill, SolidCAM, etc).

It sounds like what you are describing is a system like stand-alone Mastercam. When you get a revision change, you re-import the new model, but lose all previous associativity between geometric features and machining operations. You have to re-open every operation individually and re-select geometry, then regenerate toolpaths.

[This is the same as saving all the operations, sans geometry, to a operation library, then re-importing them.]

While in some cases this is better than starting totally from scratch, in my experience it becomes quite unwieldy for anything but the simplest parts. First of all, it is tedious and time consuming. It seemed unnecessary to have to re-select geometry for operations even if nothing changed.

Now, you could re-program the ops that changed, then cut and paste the new G-codes into the old G-program with the text editor. But then the CAM file does not contain all the operations for the job in one place. This is a problem on many levels, not the least is which now you can’t fully verify the program.

Besides, it can be difficult to know what changed. Did a hole move .01? Did a pocket wall move .05? Sometimes you can’t tell by looking, and revision sheets are not complete. I was always paranoid I’d miss something.

That is one of the biggest reasons I like associativity, even in the cases where it fails (say, because the designer completely deleted a pocket and then re-creates it, so there is no feature match between revisions). By retaining most of the operations, at least I could focus only on those that changed and not waste time on those things that didn’t.

I mentioned several specific products above to make it clear about what I meant by the three different CAM software types. However, I’d like to avoid talking about specific products if at all possible because, as you can see from many other posts on this forum, they end up going off on irrelevant tangents or degenerating into “my CAM system can beat up your CAM system” discussions that are only interesting to CAD/CAM salesmen, and not to CAD/CAM users.

I think what is happening in this industry right now is important, and I’d like to sort through it with thoughtful and knowledgeable people who are as curious and interested in it as I am. I acknowledge that there are many good CNC programming systems of every flavor out there and that no one system fits every application. I also think that as time goes on, more stand-alone companies will come out with Integrated CAM products, so the landscape is changing beneath everyone’s feet.

I would hope we could re-focus the discussion on Integrated CAM and an honest airing of its strengths and potential weaknesses.

Many more posts here I need to catch up on and will comment if I think I have something useful to add. Good discussion.

[tikka308]

Charles - great post. I can't say I have an opinion worthy of adding to what you've said, but I will say that I'm exciting to watch this thread unfold. I think you've hit on quite a few good points.

[NexGenMfg]

Why I like Mainstream CAD

I’m a fan of SolidWorks. I have been since I first saw the product about 10 years ago, and I’ve used it on an off since then. I have used it a lot the last year. I am not current with the latest Inventor, but saw a demo of it recently, and it looks like it has many fine features. I am not current with ProE at all, but assume the same. From what I hear, ProE is very powerful.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the CAD functions I mention below are all available and work well and seamlessly in all the mainstream CAD systems. I don’t mean to favor SolidWorks in this writing, so when I use the name SolidWorks (for expediency), you can substitute the name of your favorite CAD system in its place.

For many years, I used a CAD system what was included with a major stand-alone CAD/CAM system. The CAD in this system was not bad and had some features I liked. Of course, after many years of use, I had learned to get the most what it did offer.

However, the more I use SolidWorks as the CAD engine for Integrated CAM products, the more I see the advantages.

First of all, I loved the visualization tools in SolidWorks. I can change the material, color, and translucency of any part in my assembly fast and easy. So, for example, I can show clamps in a different color so they are easy to distinguish from the part, or in transparent so I know they are there, but don’t distract from the part I’m focused on.
I like being able to quickly slice and move a section view through the part from any direction. I helps me more quickly understand the structure of the part and inspect features that are hard to see any other way.

I like being able to quickly hide or show any component in my assembly.

As I mentioned in a previous post, part configurations are useful for being able to work with the part in different states for different stages of machining (for example, being able to suppress holes or details to machined or EMD burn later).

Using assemblies I can quickly build or modify my setup. It helps that major tooling manufacturers (like Jergens) offers their components as SolidWorks CAD models.

I like that I can drive a sketch with dimensions; even for something as simple as creating a stock boundary and finding nice rounded numbers to define the stock.

The CAD sold with my stand-alone system did a few of these things, but lacked many others. Even most of those it did were not implemented as elegantly and efficiently as SolidWorks.

Data translators are included in SolidWorks that this system charged for. A small business may not need a UG translator often but it is nice to have it when you need it. Besides, who wants to go back to a customer and ask them to re-send a file in a neutral file format because you can’t read the native file?

It is common sense that the CAD functions in mainstream systems are wholly superior. CAD is their primary business. They have far more people and a lot more money devoted to it than stand-alone CAD/CAM companies.

When I moved from stand-alone to Integrated CAM, I was concerned that perhaps I would lose something. What I did find was that I had some to learn how to make SolidWorks do things that were easy for me in the system I had used for years.
For example, Splines in SolidWorks took some work for me to fully understand. I have yet to find anything I can model in SolidWorks, though I do have to refer to the Help or document from time to time.

Recently I attended an Advance SolidWorks class near Boston. One of the instructors, Mr. David Pancoast, taught the Advanced Surfacing subjects. (I hope he doesn’t mind. I mention his name I think because great teachers should be recognized).
I had not spent a lot of time with the surfacing part of the software, and was still stuck in a mindset that solid modelers were great for prismatic modeling, but fell short for complex, free-form shapes.

Mr. Pancoast really opened my eyes. It is pretty amazing how far the surfacing part of solid modelers have come in just the last few years. We did some things with complex fillets, for example, that I just did not think were possible. Thank you, Mr. Pancoast.

In summary, this has been my experience: Mainstream CAD systems can do everything I could do in my old stand-alone CAD/CAM, and many things that it could not. The implementation of these functions (the UI) is far superior in most cases.

I did have to re-learn a few things. I would encourage anyone learning Solidworks (or any new CAD or CAM system) to take training. It will open your eyes (even if, like me, you thought you already knew it all) and is a lot cheaper and productive than teaching yourself.

[NexGenMfg]

As soon as mechanical drawing moved from the drawing board to the computer there arose the need to share data between CAD systems. This was a problem.

CAD systems store information about lines, arcs, dimensions, and other design details in a database. (What you see on the computer screen is a graphic representation of this underlying database). The structure of this database is a trade secret and CAD companies were understandably reluctant to allow competitors to peek into their inner workings.

So, how to get data from one proprietary CAD format to another, when neither company wants to disclose their data format? The answer was the Neutral file, and it works like this:

A Neutral file is a separate data format whose structure is known to both CAD companies, allowing either to write (export) drawings stored in their proprietary format data to it without divulging anything about how they stored their system. Other companies could then read (import) the Neutral file and then save it into their own proprietary format.

Many Neutral file formats emerged and it seemed every CAD systems created it own Neutral format, but the most popular standards remain DXF (Drawing Exchange Format), IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Format), and STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product data).

Problem solved, right?

Not really.

While neutral files work well for very simple entities, like points, lines and arcs, beyond that, it gets a little trickier.

(Note: In order to shorten this post, I’ve put the full text of this article at http://hsmworksblog.blogspot.com/)

Integrated CAM eliminates all of these problems. No translation means no translation errors and no missing, corrupt or unsupported entities. Because CAM has access to all of the design data, it can use it to do some really useful things, like automatically program holes.

Working with an Integrated system offers other benefits. There is only one file to keep track of, so engineering does not have to create a neutral file every time a design changes. This reduces labor and mistakes.

Even job shops that get data from many different CAD systems benefit. The list is long but here is just one: free data translators. Most mainstream CAD systems include many data translators that stand-alone CAD/CAM systems make you buy. As a small job shop, you may not get a request to quote a CATIA, UG or ProE© part often, but it’s nice to be able to read the file if you do: without having to go back to the customer and ask them to send you an IGES file.


Note: Tradenames are the property of their respective owners.