[1latheman]

Hey anyone heard of having your software validated???

[beege]

Yes! In a good Quality System, the software that you choose should be able to do ALL you ask it to do, without fail. That includes ERP systems, bookkeeping systems, data backup systems (especially) and CAD/CAM systems. You just have to define the requirements for your particular needs.

[foxsquirrel]

Are you serious, if so you must have posted in the wrong forum. MCrap struggles getting a high speed tool path, I cannot imagine trying to validate it.

[ObrienDave]

Any tool is only as good as the person using it.

[foxsquirrel]

Any tool is only as good as the person using it.

You are very correct with that statement, but its hard to build an ivory tower from a pile of dung

[TheBigJW]

Any tool is only as good as the person using it.

Try designing and making that tool with a calculator that gives a different result every time. And then add a dealer network between the developer and the end user of that calculator.

John

[Superman]

You 2 guys remind me of a car at a race track

a high performance engine under the hood capable of doing all that is asked of it, this being mastercam
the shell and wheels being a correctly configured post,
,,,,,,and of course, the driver

all of these components must work at their best to get the optimum results
if one is under-performing, then the result is crap

We know that the engine is good, the shell......ahh...reasonable, maybe now has a few dings, ( couple of little mods done here and there )
,,,,,but, the driver has still got the L plates on display. He's trying to drive it how he thinks it has to be driven, not the way it should be done

Have you guys thought that the problem may be the nut behind the wheel ?

[ObrienDave]

YAY! Superman! :banana:
I did not want to get into it with these two.

They remind me of the guy that basically forced MCam on the shop I was working at.
At that time it was just me doing the programming for 3 machines.
One was an 8 spindle turret Burgmaster and 2 small Kitamuras.
The programming system was called Unimod.
THAT system was a real piece of junk.
This guy comes in and says "MasterCam can do everything. It's the best!".
After about six months of this, the boss finally relented and purchased two seats of MasterCam and sent us both to MasterCam school in Huntington Beach, Ca.
I had already had 5 years of Unimod under my belt so picking up MasterCam was pretty easy for me.
I was really impressed at the time because MCam was SO much better than Unimod.
So much so, that I NEVER used Unimod again except for the stuff I had already programmmed.
Anyway, after a few months, because this guy could not understand why MCam would not do what HE thought it should, suddenly MCam became the biggest piece of crap he had ever seen in his life.
He quit about a year later because the boss would not consider switching over to Gibbs.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until my dying breath,
ANY system, or tool, is only as good as the person using it.
If it doesn't do what you want, YOU must figure out how to make it work.

The main problem with ANY system is usually "The nut behind the wheel".
:cheers:

[foxsquirrel]

The main problem with ANY system is usually "The nut behind the wheel".
:cheers:

In this case its the lazy programmers that have never heard of quality control. Back in the early days writing code for a DOS platform was straight forward and much easier to validate, that is far from the case at the present (not MCrap's fault). Their developers have not realized this, at the time of emerging technology everything looked good, anything better than punching a tape by hand was a major improvement.

The majority of the people "cheer leading" MasterCrap have NOT PAID FULL PRICE FOR IT, THEY ARE USING AN EDUCATIONAL DISCOUNT software or something from their current employer or whatever.

Why complain when you only have a few hundred dollars in a $20,000 software package.

When you actually pay that much money for something out of your OWN POCKET its expected to perform. If the license agreement would have allowed us to sell the software I would have moved on to something better while X3 was still current AND YOU WOULD NOT BE READING THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE GOT TO THIS POINT. When its your own money its hard to dump $17,000 in the trash.........

[Delw]

Hey anyone heard of having your software validated???

I dont think it will make a difference to have your software validated as much as it would have to have your processor ( the computer one/hardware one. )

reason being if your math processor is messed up or something is clocked wrong cad software will have issues.
I seem to recall back when the dx100 intell chips came out there was a math co processor error cause'ing cad systems to give wrong info in certain situations. That would have been long ago like 93?

with the complexity of the new software packages , ie solids and surfaces a small error in the math co processor could cause some major problems.

[Delw]

In this case its the lazy programmers that have never heard of quality control. Back in the early days writing code for a DOS platform was straight forward and much easier to validate, that is far from the case at the present (not MCrap's fault). Their developers have not realized this, at the time of emerging technology everything looked good, anything better than punching a tape by hand was a major improvement.

The majority of the people "cheer leading" MasterCrap have NOT PAID FULL PRICE FOR IT, THEY ARE USING AN EDUCATIONAL DISCOUNT software or something from their current employer or whatever.

Why complain when you only have a few hundred dollars in a $20,000 software package.

When you actually pay that much money for something out of your OWN POCKET its expected to perform. If the license agreement would have allowed us to sell the software I would have moved on to something better while X3 was still current AND YOU WOULD NOT BE READING THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE GOT TO THIS POINT. When its your own money its hard to dump $17,000 in the trash.........

your high-lite in red is not entirely accurate.
if the software is not making good parts then it would be useless to the people you described.

you are correct in when its your money its hard to dump in the trash on a software that doesnt work the way you want.
for the amount of money that ALL HIGH END CAD CAM systems cost, it should be if you dont like/or it doesnt work like the salesmen said it would return it.
its kinda like a machine that a Salemens said would cut this would no problems, show you a demo at show running your part, only to take delivery of a machine and you have to cut you cuts in 1/4's even though you are using the same material, tooling etc, come to find out they called it inconell and it turned out it was really 304ss.

When I worked for a guy I watched this very thing happen. believe it or not he returned the machine and threatened to sue.



Thats why I aint rushing to go out and blow 14k on any software till I know it works and works right for my application, otherwise it would be as useless as a broken drill bit.



Delw

[TheBigJW]

You 2 guys remind me of a car at a race track

a high performance engine under the hood capable of doing all that is asked of it, this being mastercam
the shell and wheels being a correctly configured post,
,,,,,,and of course, the driver

all of these components must work at their best to get the optimum results
if one is under-performing, then the result is crap

We know that the engine is good, the shell......ahh...reasonable, maybe now has a few dings, ( couple of little mods done here and there )
,,,,,but, the driver has still got the[SIZE="5"] L [/SIZE] plates on display. He's trying to drive it how he thinks it has to be driven, not the way it should be done

Have you guys thought that the problem may be the nut behind the wheel ?

My dealer jacked their price list almost 40%. I just can't take that lying down. Or driving around a track.

And if I had as many problems with a car I would be protected by the lemon laws here in this country. They would have to provide a refund. Can you imagine if Mastercam was a car LOL. All those screwdrivers stuck in the dash you used to adjust things while you are driving down the road. And the odd time it would just head into oncoming traffic. LOL.

This from the Mastercam forum.

[quote name=' timestamp='1292189175' post='651602']
IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN! Posted a clean op that was to machine to 1.000" deep and it machined to .955" deep. Better too shallow than too deep I guess. Regenerating once left it at the same depth of .955 and regenerating a second time put it down at 1.000" where it should be.
[/quote]

And this is just one of many bugs in the new rock solid X5. So is this the nut behind the wheel?

If you bought X4 only 11 months ago you won't get a patch for this. At 20k it will remain broken for you for ever.

John

[foxsquirrel]

I dont think it will make a difference to have your software validated as much as it would have to have your processor ( the computer one/hardware one. )

reason being if your math processor is messed up or something is clocked wrong cad software will have issues.
I seem to recall back when the dx100 intell chips came out there was a math co processor error cause'ing cad systems to give wrong info in certain situations. That would have been long ago like 93?

with the complexity of the new software packages , ie solids and surfaces a small error in the math co processor could cause some major problems.

You are correct on the coprocessor issue, at the time we considered it but if you were too actually get caught buy it the odds were greater than winning the lottery.

[foxsquirrel]

Thats why I aint rushing to go out and blow 14k on any software till I know it works and works right for my application,


Delw

That is extremely hard to do because initially every little quirk you have to call the Mcrap rep on is considered a learning issue. After you have used the software for several months you begin to notice all the quirks. I just found one major issue several years after buying the software. The Haas POST does not function properly, I was told it is correct and will work. BS, we have a 10 vise set up on the machine and guess what, the post does not generate the work offsets G154 P1, G154 P2, etc. I have to cut and paste, so why did we spend $17,000 on something that requires cut and paste of something that is extremely dangerous to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheBigJW]

That is extremely hard to do because initially every little quirk you have to call the Mcrap rep on is considered a learning issue. After you have used the software for several months you begin to notice all the quirks. I just found one major issue several years after buying the software. The Haas POST does not function properly, I was told it is correct and will work. BS, we have a 10 vise set up on the machine and guess what, the post does not generate the work offsets G154 P1, G154 P2, etc. I have to cut and paste, so why did we spend $17,000 on something that requires cut and paste of something that is extremely dangerous to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cut and paste gcode is a perfectly acceptable work around.. You can't say the software doesn't work. There is an operation called insert text. With this option the software will do anything. Write gcode by hand and then use MC to insert...


On my demo/training day at our dealers classroom for X4 I was told by my dealer it would be easier for me if I just export our SW2010 files to dxf profiles from the Solidworks drawing files to use in Lathe and wire. Really. Are you for real? This was thier solution.

It's really hard to try new cam software because of the time it takes to learn it before you can review it. This is why so many people stick with Mastercrap.

In my recent shopping I am finding most of the other Cam companies will give you a very good discount if coming from Mastercrap.

John

[foxsquirrel]

Cut and paste gcode is a perfectly acceptable work around.. You can't say the software doesn't work. There is an operation called insert text. With this option the software will do anything. Write gcode by hand and then use MC to insert...





John

I was doing that but for me the Tree seems unstable, its a hard to duplicate issue so it might be me on that one.

Not being able to import one of the worlds most popular software packages SolidWorks into Mcrap is a real dissappointment.

FYI, I have not had to call the Rep to bail me out of SolidWorks 2010 or ask for work arounds. Gee, I wonder why Dassault is the Big Dog!!!!!!

[1latheman]

Beege,
Thanks! we are in the middle of a ISO audit and one of my NC's is Validation of Software
that last comment just put into perspective for me. I guess will have to do a little statiscal testing and create our own boundries.

[foxsquirrel]

Beege,
Thanks! we are in the middle of a ISO audit and one of my NC's is Validation of Software
that last comment just put into perspective for me. I guess will have to do a little statiscal testing and create our own boundries.

Good luck on that, is it an ISO auditor or a customer verifying ISO compliance?

Remember the MAGIC WORD, "for reference only"