Re: Test - How Fast is Your CAM System?
Joe788
> obfuscation.
>
> Aw now, you know I've never discussed specific systems in the past so
> why would you expect it to be any different now?
Yup, that's one of the things that always bothered me about your
posts.
Fucked up industry the CADCAM industry is.
The Jon Banquer Blog makes that clear:
> Also you know I've never given you a bum steer, or told you anything
> that wasn't clear and to the point.
The problem is that you have always asked me to accept what you say at
face value. I like specifics.
The Jon Banquer blog has a page all about specifics that Jon Banquer
has personally experienced in Mastercam:
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/improvements-needed-in-mastercam/
Notice it says nothing about Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam
5th axis machining, Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam Lathe,
etc. Everything in that list, except where noted, has been personally
experienced by Jon Banquer and is a specific.
> So I'm a little disappointed that you'd think I'm out to obfuscated the issue. Never mind I'll still tell
> you this:
Without specifics perhaps it's not possible not to obfuscate.
>automation is one thing, a tool database is another thing.
Every system that I know of that automates use a tool library. You
won't name a system that doesn't.
> Now what you take from the above is up to you.
That you continue to refuse to provide any specifics or concrete
examples to backup your claim.
Hang Dog
> On Nov 19, 12:58 am, Hang Dog <righte...@wobble.nospam.net> wrote:
>> obfuscation.
>>
>> Aw now, you know I've never discussed specific systems in the past so
>> why would you expect it to be any different now?
>
> Yup, that's one of the things that always bothered me about your
> posts.
>
> Fucked up industry the CADCAM industry is.
>
Bothered you, how come?
IMO each of these programs has its own strengths, weaknesses, cost base
etc. Whilst some are undoubtedly superior to others in many respects,
they may all suffer from a weakness in some area when compared to another.
One wouldn't not buy a Massarati because it only does 5 mpg, nor would
you not buy a Fiat Punto because you can't get a 1000lb of scrap metal
in the back, nor would you not buy a pickuop truck because it doesn't go
from 0-60 in under 5 seconds. You buy these things for what they can do,
based on your needs.
> The Jon Banquer Blog makes that clear:
>
> www.jonbanquer.wordpress.com
>
>> Also you know I've never given you a bum steer, or told you anything
>> that wasn't clear and to the point.
>
> The problem is that you have always asked me to accept what you say at
> face value. I like specifics.
>
Look about you, its not a back and white world. rational people decide
to buy one software package over another. They mostly do an evaluation
to decide whether to buy X or Y. Sometimes its direct comparison of
features, other times its cost, support, or maybe one salesman has body
odour problem.
Fact is that minus a specific tooling database Gibbs sells software and
whilst no doubt their users would like the product to have one, the lack
is not sufficient reason for them not to buy the software. For Gibbs
users comparing systems a tool database its not the deal breaker.
> The Jon Banquer blog has a page all about specifics that Jon Banquer
> has personally experienced in Mastercam:
>
> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/improvements-needed-in-mastercam/
>
> Notice it says nothing about Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam
> 5th axis machining, Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam Lathe,
> etc. Everything in that list, except where noted, has been personally
> experienced by Jon Banquer and is a specific.
>
>> So I'm a little disappointed that you'd think I'm out to obfuscated the issue. Never mind I'll still tell
>> you this:
>
> Without specifics perhaps it's not possible not to obfuscate.
>
The only specifics that are meaningful is to run the software on your
parts and see whether it does the job.
>> automation is one thing, a tool database is another thing.
>
> Every system that I know of that automates use a tool library. You
> won't name a system that doesn't.
>
Ah a tool library is different from a tool database. BBs file is a tool
library, and an automation system can be built to use that.
Joe788
>
> Notice it says nothing about Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam
> 5th axis machining, Jon Banquer's experience with Mastercam Lathe,
> etc. Everything in that list, except where noted, has been personally
> experienced by Jon Banquer and is a specific.
>
Jon, you made plenty of "specific" claims about FBM Drilling before
you ever used it, and you didn't even have access to it. You went so
far as to try and correct the name that I was using for it, until that
backfired spectacularly in your face and you proved to everybody that
were just bullshitting away as usual.
You are a pathetic fraud. An *angry* little pathetic fraud at that.
Joe788
FACTS I've post showing how buggy Mastercam X4 is. Further the
original poster who started this tread is obsessed with how long it
takes to pick out a tool out of a library rather than defining it from
scratch. This is because the original poster topped out at $23.50 an
hour and is a fucking moron when it comes to CADCAM. He only knows
Gibbscam and can't see any kind of big picture. Retired is where he
belongs.
Here is your content:
The big picture is you need a tool library to create any kind of
meaningful automation in a CADCAM program. In fact, you actually need
multiple user defined tool libraries to really give you control over
your automation / what your doing. If there is another way of doing
this than Guido / Hang Dog should be posting the name of the CADCAM
system that doesn't need a tool library but knowing Guido / Hang Dog
he won't. Suffice it to say that every system I know of, from
Mastercam, to Siemens NX, to SolidCAM, to Delcam For SolidWorks has
tool libraries but once again the point isn't really tool libraries
it's how do you automate repetitive bullshit that slows down CNC
program creation. The original poster doesn't want to go there because
Gibbscam doesn't have any real automation. Why? Bill Gibbs made the
decision years ago that Feature Recognition was bullshit and he waited
much to long to start using what little Gibbscam does use. Last I
heard Gibbscam was using GSSL's feature recognition for holes. Here's
a head's up: FeatureCAM doesn't use anything from GSSL. They do their
own feature recognition and they're damn proud of it.
Notice in this video that a tool is NEVER seen being chosen out of a
library or defined by scratch. Why? Because the automation in Delcam
For SolidWorks is applying the tools from the tool library that the
user has previously chosen that the user wishes to use for this part.
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/new-delcam-for-solidworks-video/
You wanted real content... now you've got real content.
I'm sure Cliffy, Tom Brewer, John Carroll and the real / fake Joe788
will be along shortly to try and move this thread off topic with their
usual fucking bullshit.
It's all about saving time and without a tool library to help in
applying a process to a feature you can't do much automation in any
CADCAM system that I know of. If Hang Dog / Guido knows of a system he
should have named it by now instead of playing his usual game of
obfuscation.
Joe788
Jon, that's nothing but a copy/paste of your earlier buffoonery,
(while posing as somebody else to boot!). Don't you have anything
fresh for us, buddy? Why didn't you respond to my comments the first
time you posted this garbage?
Janes
Joe788 wrote:
> On Nov 19, 12:58 am, Hang Dog <righte...@wobble.nospam.net> wrote:
>> obfuscation.
>>
>> Aw now, you know I've never discussed specific systems in the past so
>> why would you expect it to be any different now?
Cliff
>> Also you know I've never given you a bum steer, or told you anything
>> that wasn't clear and to the point.
>
>The problem is that you have always asked me to accept what you say at
>face value. I like specifics.
IOW Poor yonnie has no idea what it's about.
Buzzword City !!
--
Cliff
Cliff
>We have yet to see any real comment discussed here other than the
>FACTS I've post showing how buggy Mastercam X4 is.
Too bad that YOU cannot drill holes with it, right?
Oops .. you said your (claimed) employeer has 100+ seats of Pro-E
in San Diego ...
Which is it yonnie?
--
Cliff
larryrozer
> "Hang Dog" <righte...@wobble.nospam.net> wrote in messagenews:7mkjt0F...@mid.individual.net...
David, seems you just did the same thing! ????????
Joe788
larryrozer
>
> Notice in this video that a tool is NEVER seen being chosen out of a
> library or defined by scratch. Why?
Because it's a canned DEMO !
> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/new-delcam-for-solidworks-video/
Still nothing new, nothing that hasn't been around for quite a few
years there Jon.
> What Delcam For SolidWorks does is reduce the tediousness that's often
> associated with CADCAM programming and allows you to create part
> programs much, much faster
Why are you so impressed with it now, all of a sudden?
You do know this is nothing new, right?
You never used a real CAD/CAM system where the model (CAD) and
machining (CAM) is associative?
Think CAD/CAM Jon, associative, feature recognition, it's been around
for years. Where you been, thought you were an expert?
> than stand-alone CADCAM programs like
> Gibbscam that don't even know what a feature is.
As an expert you make quite a few beginner mistakes Jon. Like calling
GibbsCAM a CADCAM program. GibbsCAM is a CAM program NOT a CAD/CAM
program, you should know that.
Joe788
larryrozer
>
> We have yet to see any real comment discussed here
What CAD, CAM or CAD/CAM program did you use when you programmed
BottleBob's part?
Not idiot proof since you managed to make an error right off the bat
trying to draw this very simple part.
Joe788
Cliff
>The big picture is you need a tool library to create any kind of
>meaningful automation in a CADCAM program.
Therefore you MUST get DelCAM to use CAD, right?
Find out how to drill holes yet? Yourself?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>We have yet to see any real comment discussed here other than the
>FACTS I've post showing how buggy Mastercam X4 is. Further the
>original poster who started this tread is obsessed with how long it
>takes to pick out a tool out of a library rather than defining it from
>scratch.
You've never done either, eh, yonnie?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>If there is another way of doing
>this than Guido / Hang Dog should be posting the name of the CADCAM
>system that doesn't need a tool library but knowing Guido / Hang Dog
>he won't.
I guess none of them can drill holes, eh?
OTOH YOU Never answered His/Her/Their questions.
No clues (again)?
--
Cliff
Joe788
Cliff
>We have yet to see any real comment discussed here other than the
>FACTS I've post showing how buggy Mastercam X4 is.
Every other actual user can easily drill those few holes.
They probably either actually use it, read the simple
instructions, got training, asked questions of real users
or thought for a few seconds when looking at the
screen.
Clearly none of those apply to you, clueless.
So cut the endless BS. We all know better & that you cannot
use it even for the most simple of work.
--
Cliff