CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input

Mark Chitjian

CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input

Patrick Touron has asked us to to poll the users on V5 and V6 NC Machine Simulation versus Vericut.


From your point of view.....
 
1. What are the Top 5 areas where Vericut is better than V5/V6 CATIA?

2. What are the Top 5 areas where CATIA V5/V6 is better than Vericut?

3. The Top 5 reasons why you the user/customer does not want to change from Vericut to CATIA V5/V6 Machine Simulation


Mark Chitjian

DS Americas Corp.

Poughkeepsie, NY

Samarinder Singh

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Hi Mark,

I haven't got my hands on V6 machining yet so I am not sure if that would be a fair feedback when knowing nothing about V6 simulation's capabilities.

ps I would love to take V6 for a spin if there is any test-pilot program available.

Thanks,

Samarinder

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Samarinder Singh)

Hi Samarinder,

Yes, I would love to take a test drive also..   Vrrrrrummmmmm Vrrrrrrummmmmm

I hear MS in V6 is 3x as fast, and the graphics are better......

 

Hijack / off

Patrick asked me the same questions via e-mail just the other day, an requested a response with  knowladge of V5  vs. Vericut for those that are not on V6.  ....... Looks like an open invitation to compliment good things and request what's missing :)

 

I will post my response after you guys chime in. I don;t want to corrupt anyones thinking.

Patrick already has my answers.

Dave

 

PS

 

This should be interesting........

Roger Bombassei

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Plus

I think it would be great to have the machine right there while I'm programming.  I spend a lot of time and energy trying to imagine whether I have the clearance I need.  If the machine was right there I wouldn't need to imagine and find other methods to check.

Minus

I haven't seen any sample controls that can be modified by the user.  Vericut has this.

There should be an example of all basic machine configurations and controls for free that can be used as a starting point that can be modified by the NC programmer.  Dassault should offer training and tech support that can get the NC programmer started similar to what CGtech offers.

Edited By:
Roger Bombassei[El Camino College] @ Dec 07, 2011 - 10:05 AM (America/Eastern)

Bryan Carpio Felsher

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Roger Bombassei)

I think the biggest reason no one uses Catia machine simulation is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut.  Sure, you can see pretty colors on screen representing bad and good areas, but without an actual report telling you exactly what the discrepancies are, and what line numbers created them, I can't see any machine shop trusting it to tell them that they'll make a good part.

Auto-Diff is what seperates Vericut from the rest of the simulation software out there, and there's pleny of them...some of them fairly inexpensive.  But without a real report telling you what's going on- that you didn't crash OR violate the design model, what can you show your boss, and the shop to prove to them that your program is good?

Without this functionality, Catia MS will never be used for much...and the cost can't be justified, when every shop is going to end up putting it through Vericut to get the Auto-Diff report.  Why set it all up and do it twice?

If Catia had Auto-Diff, I would take a long hard look at buying it, and I'm sure everyone else would take it more seriously, as well. 

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

In 2007 before buying Vericut, I give a close look at V5 simulation, and it was far behind in terms of capabilities. The price was 2.5x more than Vericut if I wanted the ability to buid my own CE. I don't know where it is right now.

Why I choose vericut :

- As Brian says, autodiff and x-caliper are very good tools and it beats all other simulation software I have used so far

- As Roger says, fully open and a good library of CE and machines, very easy to setup something working and accurate, it helps a lot when you are a contractor

- Reliability, when it says the part is OK and you don't crash the machine, you're done, no surprise

I'm currently testing V6, and I'll decide in January if I upgrade or not. If yes, maybe it makes sense to give another look at MS.

 

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)

Hi Friends

These are all good comments.

One of the biggest reason I found managers like Vericut, is because it is independent. The expression is do you want to check your own homework?

Vericut has Many features that would be great to add to CATIA, and I love the integration

However I think If Dassault not only added more functions, but also had a stand alone mode, to run after the program is done, and saved. You need to check g-code simulation on the actual program to be run, not just the work in progress.

Autodiff, especially CONSTANT GOUGE are imperative. For the reason pointed out by my colleagues above.

 

RE Roger says  : think it would be great to have the machine right there while I'm programming. I spend a lot of time and energy trying to imagine whether I have the clearance I need. If the machine was right there I wouldn't need to imagine and find other methods to check.

I agree, check reachability is a very powerfull tool. I love it  

 I have an interesting suggestion. If Machine builder was part of the base product, NC programmers could take matters into their own hands, and make simple models of machines, and use check reachability. The programmer that is usually highly skilled, and motivated to improve ones skill set, would not have permission paralysis, depending on upper managers to BUY a MB license.  The cost of the licenses is only part of it. Imagine having 80 machines. 22 are gantries, and I have 2 sp, 3 sp with 30, 40, and 65 inch centers, and 2 4 spindles.  Not all SNK'S have the same spindles.

But The point is, if MB was standard, the programmer would only need to ask for a MS license to make it come alive, rather than static.  Wink Wink

RE Roger says : There should be an example of all basic machine configurations and controls for free that can be used as a starting point that can be modified by the NC programmer. Dassault should offer training and tech support that can get the NC programmer started similar to what CGtech offers.

I agree. I DS hired one guy to build machines, and offered them with the software, it would help. The CGTech machine are good, but in my experience, the more accurate the less near miss, and false alarms. I built all mine in CATIA and exported stls.

 

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Bryan Carpio Felsher)



In Reply to Bryan Carpio Felsher:

I think the biggest reason no one uses Catia machine simulation is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut.  Sure, you can see pretty colors on screen representing bad and good areas, but without an actual report telling you exactly what the discrepancies are, and what line numbers created them, I can't see any machine shop trusting it to tell them that they'll make a good part.

Auto-Diff is what seperates Vericut from the rest of the simulation software out there, and there's pleny of them...some of them fairly inexpensive.  But without a real report telling you what's going on- that you didn't crash OR violate the design model, what can you show your boss, and the shop to prove to them that your program is good?

Without this functionality, Catia MS will never be used for much...and the cost can't be justified, when every shop is going to end up putting it through Vericut to get the Auto-Diff report.  Why set it all up and do it twice?

If Catia had Auto-Diff, I would take a long hard look at buying it, and I'm sure everyone else would take it more seriously, as well. 

 

 

 

I agree with everything Bryan said here about Autodiff

As far as MS goes,  the way I think I separate into 3.5 ISOLATED functions.

  1. Verification of part gouges,
  2.  machine collision detection , (with or without g-code)
  3. g-code simulation  ( with or without Machine simulation.)

In my opinion, you can make money with both Vericut MS, and CATIA Machine Simulation, if you have the right kind of work.

 

As Henry Ford said, If you need something and you do not buy it, you PAY FOR IT, without Having it.

 

CATIA Machine Simulation will find 95% of you collisions, in a interactive way.  Then you use Vericut, because as Bryan pointed out, without BULLET PROOF GOUGE DETECTION, Vericut is indispensible.

Now Vericut or CATIA Machine Simulation is not indispensible for all programmers. It depends on the parts you do and the Machine Kinematics.

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)



In Reply to Nicolas Denis:

In 2007 before buying Vericut, I give a close look at V5 simulation, and it was far behind in terms of capabilities. The price was 2.5x more than Vericut if I wanted the ability to buid my own CE. I don't know where it is right now.

Why I choose vericut :

- As Brian says, autodiff and x-caliper are very good tools and it beats all other simulation software I have used so far

- As Roger says, fully open and a good library of CE and machines, very easy to setup something working and accurate, it helps a lot when you are a contractor

- Reliability, when it says the part is OK and you don't crash the machine, you're done, no surprise

I'm currently testing V6, and I'll decide in January if I upgrade or not. If yes, maybe it makes sense to give another look at MS.

 


 

Hi Nicolas.

Very good points. CE amortized for only 1-4 machines is big $$$

And the bitch of it is, the CE is not a DS, product. Somehow, the small user need to be taken into consideration.

Best of luck on your V6 persuits.

Dave 

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Hello Mark and my Friends, 

Before I make suggestions for improvement, I will state where CATIA is better.

 

1. The speed to zoom and rotate is Very Very fast compared to Vericut.

2. The integration, to work within one platform.

3. To be able to check Video after each MO , or periodically, to find and remove errors in the interactive session.

4. The ability to associate Video anywhere in the program, and resume Video from the points is great.

5. The ability to bring in a CGR, make it transparent, and use it to show remaining material. This is a common practice.

 

Verification Replay and Video top 10 requirements.

 

 

  1. Be able to measure from cutter to part, (without create geometry), both from the cutter dial, and also the bottom. Radii also. (This functionality is in UGNX)
  2. Be able to Reset Cut Color, both at will at a push of a button, and by a instruction on the CATIA PPR Tree.(This functionality is in Vericut)
  3. Be able to slow down and control speed of replay better. Need to be able to slow to a crawl when you need to see things. (This functionality is in Vericut. They have both a slider, and a way to control the step, and make the max step smaller independently from steps in tool path. Changing max descritization to slow down replay is not desirable. )
  4. The visual clarity needs to be improved and more realistic in CATIA Video. Perhaps enable PHOTO, for 5-axis?....In Vericut the image of the machined part is very realistic. Visual check of VIDEO is important. Just gouge and excess is not complete. You can see mismatches clearly in Vericut. I say "the best way to see something is to Look at it". Funny but very true. I machined a small 5-axis part 16 X 24 X 2 inches, with 4 pockets. In CATIA Replay, there were visually false mismatches, that were not really there. Also the visual did not show features that were very clear in Vericut.
  5. Be able to see same information of speed, feed, XYZIJK info you see in replay, in Video as well. Also, show XYZABC info, if you have a Kinematic Machine in the process. Have a setting to display the Axial and Radial DOC settings, as Video and replay are shown.
  6. Be able to see the CL path in VIDEO not just in Replay, and control N# of lines before and after the cutter. (This functionality is in Mastercam)
  7. Have additional methods of gouge detection, such as show CHUNKS of excess / gouged material. In Vericut the chunks are graphicly made into larger red smudges, so they are easy to see. You can get a report and every gouge is listed. When selecting a specific gouge in the report, the gouge is highlighted on the part, so you can zoom in as see if it is a real problem. In Vericut, you can measure a gouge............ In R19 DS adds a new gouge detection that shows in replay exact undercut of cutter and Design solid. Allow the same kind of absolute gouge detection in replay, in Video, on the current process, and also Aptsource from the Hard Drive. Same request for g-code with CE.
  8. Be able to entering a maximum allowable gouge and shrink the cutter for VIDEO only, to avoid false gouges due to tessellated models. Usually corner radii, and railtop radii will show false gouges because of faceting. This is done in Vericut, by having the software make the tool smaller by the given amount. Before Vericut implemented this enhancement, I would make a tool list for Vericut cutter geometry, and lie about the cutter diameter, and gage length, to do this. There is also a minimum allowable excess. Same principal: If you want .1 inch excess material, checking with a .099 radialy over size, extended .099 in gage length, and test this against the design solid, it is a FAST and simple way to insure.
  9. Implement volumetric feedrate control....... Optipath, only better because it is integrated into the Catprocess.
  10. In Video, be able to touch a machined area, and have the cutter move to that position. From there be able to replay CL and motion (without Metal removal), N# of lines before and after that position. This is very helpful to be able to quickly see what toolpath made a cut, and to easily replay the isolated motion.
  11. Vericut can check with exact accuracy , to a point file. Imaging a part 600 inches long and you must accurately check hole size and location within .0005 inches. Regular Vericut can not do this accuratly, but checking points to the cut stock is exact. (Credit Leonard Malstrom)

 

OK that was 11, not 10.... Guilty!

Did someone say it was too quiet??  Ha Ha Ha

Best Regards,

Dave

 

Samarinder Singh

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Hi,

I 'll try to stick to 5 points only.

Catia's good points

1. Check reachable position

2. optimize tool stick out distances, holder while programming

3. Collision/interference analysis

4  ability to define multiple rules for checking interference


5 nice graphics in user interface

 


Vericut' good points

1. ability to define any machine control without buying additional software

2. Multiple Simulation views and more control of viewpoint being attached to tool etc...

3. Create custom subroutines for tool change, head change, etc...
Whereas in Catia you have to insert lots of machine instructions and tree has more instructions then tool changes

4 autodiff and there is no comparison with Catia's video analysis of gouge/remaining material. I have top of the line video card(quadro6000 with 6gb of dedicated ram) and catia doesn't do any good in this area. Once you rotate/pan/zoom the image in 3d viewer it look garbage and takes more time to refresh.

5 more components kinematics such as table, tool changer, multi spindles, etc..

 

Why cant user use a machine instruction if machine is loaded inside Catia without MSG license? Because sometimes you can not use the machine sim if you dont have this command available. So it becomes pretty much useless and counterproductive when user removes the machine and adds the mo and then brings back the machine.

 

Edited By:
Samarinder Singh[CUTPATH] @ Dec 07, 2011 - 10:21 PM (America/Pacific)

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Hi Dave,

in V6 machine builder is part of the "standard" manufacturing package. I have it in my PLM Express manufacturing test license.

Didn't have time to test it yet.

Bryan Carpio Felsher

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)

To be frank, other than dual-rotary machines, if you have a good post that you trust 110% to convert aptsource into G-Code, I've never felt I was missing out on anything not having machine simulation.  I trust AZPost 120%.  The posted code is always an accurate conversion with no surprises.

I've never had a shop scrap a part or crash because of something machine sim would have caught.  This is 600+ projects (not including part families) in my 6th year in business.  That's proof enough for me...I visualize the machine in my brain, and my posts test travel limits.  I print out cover sheet of each runbook I make (excluding part families- just print one of them), and put into a paper catalog in a big binder, so I know how many I've done, and I use it to find a good starting template process each time I get a new job.

Dual Rotaries are the only time I'd want MS, and Mill-turns if I programmed them, which I don't.  No money in it.

Aptsource simulation is good enough for me.  I have my own trick to test with Catia.  I blow up tools and/or design models run with an imported aptsource file in NC Manufacturing review, and set up to crash or gouge.  Run until zero crashes and my entire model is green, and I'm certain the program is good.  Works every time...

Would I use MS?  No, I wouldn't, regardless of the software.  Time is money for me, and unless I get paid extra to set it up and do it, I don't spend my time.  If I worked for someone else, would I use it?  Yes.  Because I'd be getting paid.  I'd probably take my sweet time, also...

Mark Chitjian

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Gents,

Thanks for all the great input. I emailed Patrick to take a look.

Keep it coming!

 

Mark Chitjian

DS Americas Corp.

Poughkeepsie, NY

Roger Bombassei

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

We just verify on the machine.

I'd prefer to use MS but I can't afford it.

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Roger Bombassei)



In Reply to Roger Bombassei:

We just verify on the machine.

I'd prefer to use MS but I can't afford it.

 

 

Hi Roger,

I think the idea is that your company is supposed to buy it.

....but, they have Vericut machine simulation don't they?

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)
I have a very large bulkhead that keeps crashing on Video analysis.
 
It is 80 X 80 X 4 earth inches :)
 
This will also demonstrate where Video analysis could be improved. To benchmark:   Vericut can rotate quickly and keeps the image 90% quality, It can be refreshed to get the extra 100% visual quality, but 90% is usually good enough. Vericut can also make the stock transparent,
 
See the attached powerpoint for the image
Dave
Attachments

  • CATIA Locks up on Video analysis.ppt (136k)

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Bryan Carpio Felsher)



In Reply to Bryan Carpio Felsher:

I think the biggest reason no one uses Catia machine simulation is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut.  Sure, you can see pretty colors on screen representing bad and good areas, but without an actual report telling you exactly what the discrepancies are, and what line numbers created them, I can't see any machine shop trusting it to tell them that they'll make a good part.

Auto-Diff is what seperates Vericut from the rest of the simulation software out there, and there's pleny of them...some of them fairly inexpensive.  But without a real report telling you what's going on- that you didn't crash OR violate the design model, what can you show your boss, and the shop to prove to them that your program is good?

Without this functionality, Catia MS will never be used for much...and the cost can't be justified, when every shop is going to end up putting it through Vericut to get the Auto-Diff report.  Why set it all up and do it twice?

If Catia had Auto-Diff, I would take a long hard look at buying it, and I'm sure everyone else would take it more seriously, as well. 

 

Bryan said: I think the biggest reason no one uses Catia machine simulation is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut. 

Dave's reply:  Very true about …There is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut.  And people make assumptions about MS based on video. If you want to replace Vericut, you have to do it with a product that does the same thing.

Bryan said: I think the biggest reason no one uses Catia machine simulation is that there is no real Auto-Diff as in Vericut. 

Daves reply:  To say no one uses Catia machine simulation is not an accurate statement. Many companies use Catia machine simulation. WE use Catia machine simulation, as far as check reachability goes, and it is a great tool.  Sure you can program without it. Boss #4 said you don’t need a space mouse either…..true, but that does not mean it is not usable to make money.

Bryan said:   Sure, you can see pretty colors on screen representing bad and good areas, but without an actual report telling you exactly what the discrepancies are, and what line numbers created them, I can't see any machine shop trusting it to tell them that they'll make a good part.

Dave's reply:  Bryan is 100% correct here. without 100% reliable gouge detection, Vericut is indispensable

Bryan said:   Auto-Diff is what separates Vericut from the rest of the simulation software out there, and there's pleny of them...some of them fairly inexpensive.  But without a real report telling you what's going on- that you didn't crash OR violate the design model, what can you show your boss, and the shop to prove to them that your program is good?

Dave's reply:  Bryan is 100% correct here. I could not have said it better myself.

Bryan said:   Without this functionality, Catia MS will never be used for much...and the cost can't be justified, when every shop is going to end up putting it through Vericut to get the Auto-Diff report.  Why set it all up and do it twice?

Dave's reply:  Here is where it depends on the shop, and the parts you are making. Right now we are doing a lot of big ass 6 inch thick gantry parts, but not a lot of tilt. Therefore, machine simulation be it Vericut or CATIA, is not required because you can not crash the part on the machine using only 15 degrees.

….However, when we have a lot of complex work, the following machine REQUIRE Machine simulation

  1. JOBS nutating head
  2. 90 degree head work on gantries
  3. OMNIMILL tilting head / rotary table work
  4. Mazak horizontal rotary table  

Bryan said:   If Catia had Auto-Diff, I would take a long hard look at buying it, and I'm sure everyone else would take it more seriously, as well. 

Dave's reply:  Bryan is 100% correct here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randy Hitzeman

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Hmmmm,

Maybe I just don't understand.

Dassault is unwilling to develop and incorporate N/C functionality such as ENGRAVING, something that is standard in much lesser CAM systems, preferring to delegate this to third party business partners. But on the other hand, they wish to reinvent the Vericut wheel.

Why not just embrace the best in class verification software, and find ways to integrate it with Catia, Charge us for the interface, it would be well worth it.

CGTech also provides something that will be very hard to match, TOP NOTCH CUSTOMER SUPPORT!

All of the tech support guys at CGTech are ex N/C programmers. I have personally worked with several of them when they were still programmers, and they were all good. As a result, these guys truly understand your questions when you call for help.

Also, these guys sit right next to the developers. This is not a case of some tech dude at business partner "A", in country "B", trying to work with a developer in country "C".

 

Randy Hitzeman

Edited By:
Randy Hitzeman[Synchronous Aerospace] @ Dec 16, 2011 - 03:36 PM (America/Pacific)

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Well, if by engraving you mean sketching some text or symbols, it's standard in V6.

Cgtech support is not top notch everywhere in the world, and is also not considered the best by everybody. I think it is and I buy it.

One of my client was in Japan last week at a Mazak factory. All the machines were for China and India, pretty much nothing for Europe or North America. CAM systems follow the machines. Catia machining being made in India, it makes sense that at some point the indian programmer will call the indian tech guy and have good support ... and if some development is needed he will go upstairs have a talk with the indian developer.

Does it really looks so stupid ?

Jim Zeleny

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)



In Reply to Nicolas Denis:

Well, if by engraving you mean sketching some text or symbols, it's standard in V6.


So, I need to switch to V6 just to get engraving?

I've been begging for this for some time now.

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Jim Zeleny)



In Reply to Jim Zeleny:

 

So, I need to switch to V6 just to get engraving?

 

V5 and V6 are two branches of the same tree, and moving things from one branch to another is just political will. Technically, sketching text is here in V6, so depending on the power of your company, school or whatever, you'll be able or not to get the move. I'm at the very bottom of the food chain, without any power, so if I want these enhancements I have to climb the V6 branch.

By the way, I'm not saying one should or shouldn"t switch to V6, I'm just saying I'm on a one month trial and have seen this fonctionnality in V6.

Edited By:
Nicolas Denis[Usilog] @ Dec 18, 2011 - 10:47 PM (Europe/Paris)
Nicolas Denis[Usilog] @ Dec 19, 2011 - 01:23 AM (Europe/Paris)

Randy Hitzeman

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)

Nicolas,

 

I wasn't aware that engraving is in V6. The pace of software migration here in the U.S. aerospace sector is pretty much dictated by Boeing and Lockheed. Both are cautious in their adoption of software changes. The current Boeing requirement is V5R20SP2.

I suspect that the change to V6 will be later rather than sooner in our corner of the business, so I haven't really been paying much attention to what is happening in V6.  

As far as support, I don't know what business structure Dassault has in place in India or elsewhere. If it's similar to the U.S., the customers relationship to Dassault is brokered through a 3rd party business partner. I was not aware that the N/C package was being developed in India. But I doubt that tech support personnel for business partners anywhere in the world, in India or elsewhere, would have unfettered access to the developers without somehow having to go through France first.

Also, I never said Dassault's efforts where "stupid". What I was implying is that compared to developing a comprehensive machine simulation package, things like engraving are low hanging fruit. Dassault has purchased or licensed other components of Catia before. As an example, they licensed NCCS's 5 axis tool axis strategies. Incorporating a mature product with a large user base like Vericut into Catia would, to me, seem to be a path worth exploring.         

Randy Hitzeman

Edited By:
Randy Hitzeman[Synchronous Aerospace] @ Dec 19, 2011 - 09:53 AM (America/Pacific)
Randy Hitzeman[Synchronous Aerospace] @ Dec 19, 2011 - 09:56 AM (America/Pacific)

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Randy Hitzeman)



In Reply to Randy Hitzeman:

Nicolas,

 

The pace of software migration here in the U.S. aerospace sector is pretty much dictated by Boeing and Lockheed. Both are cautious in their adoption of software changes. The current Boeing requirement is V5R20SP2.

I suspect that the change to V6 will be later rather than sooner in our corner of the business, so I haven't really been paying much attention to what is happening in V6.  

 

Randy Hitzeman

 

I think that Dassault need to take this in consideration.

I am sure as the add functionality, there is a cost impact in adding enhancements to both V5 and V6, but all of us purchased V5, and may PROGRAMMERS to not have a choice to migrate, it is upper management, that usually takes an if it isn't broke don't fix it methodology to things like this.

I recommend to Dassault that they put as much as possible into BOTH V5 and V6, as to not create animosity with the PROGRAMMERS that get stuck with the decisions of managers.

On the other hand……you can't blame them for putting trying to sweeten the pot for those moving to V6, but again, I personally think they should do that with Marketing ( discounts, Machine builder free in V6, etc. ).   

I am going out on a limb, and suggest that the technical personal at Dassault, are not included in the decision making process, as V6 is going to generate revenue.  But I think it is a great topic to discuss…..  WHEN TO UPGRADE TO V6, AND WHY.

Some food for thought

Dave

 

 

Edited By:
Dave Frank[Forrest Machining] @ Dec 19, 2011 - 10:46 AM (America/Pacific)

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Hi Randy and all....

And another thing…. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with keeping the "Lockheed / Boeing" mandated version, and also program in whatever you want R21, V6, Mastercam, UG.

 

The real issue is inspection of the part using the customer model, right??????

I know plenty of companies that are UG only houses, and use V5 just for IGES, or STOP of CATIA models. How come those folks are not taken off the jail?  (J/K)

Dave

Randy Hitzeman

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Dave,

 

Caution is exersised by both Boeing/Lockheed and by my employer. Boeing does not mandate that we use V5R20SP2, just that we have at least one seat of it available so satisfy their supplier DPD requirements. We are free to use whatever tools we want, but we have to prove that whatever data translation we perform has model definition fidelity.

To this end, it really doesn't pay to stray to far from the ranch. We have one seat of V5R20SP2, but we use V5R20SP6 to program.

 

Randy Hitzeman

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Randy Hitzeman)

Randy,

maybe the word "stupid" is not the one I should have used, and I apologize if it was rude or disrespectful.

Most OEMs around here don"t use Vericut. They have same proximity support as you have with CGTech in the US, and therefor will not be happy to see DS have a ride with CGTech.

Also I think that a machine simulation license is something like 30000€ + 5000€/year and DS doesn't want to split the pot. Emerging asian an indian market, will be starving simulation software pretty soon.

Dave,

I'll be happy to post in your WHEN TO UPGRADE TO V6, AND WHY thread. I'll try to keep it professional.

Randy Hitzeman

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)

Nicolas,

 

No offense taken. Most of us programmers have very thick skins from years of beatings on the job.

In hindsight, my original post was maybe a little too sarcastic in tone. Your reply forced me to reflect, and elaborate in a more comprehensive manner. Thank you.

I'm curious. What industry you are primarily involved in? I ask because the term OEM is usually more associated with automotive than aerospace.

Myself, I've had a lifelong love of cars and motorcycles, and a career long association with aerospace.

Randy Hitzeman

Edited By:
Randy Hitzeman[Synchronous Aerospace] @ Dec 19, 2011 - 02:15 PM (America/Pacific)

Nicolas Denis

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Randy Hitzeman)

Aerospace is a big part of my business, but I'm also working a lot with the biggest Mazak french reseller in pre and post sales, which allows me to touch pretty much every industry including automotive.

The last 2 years I have done a lot of mill/turn programming for the nuclear industry.

Samarinder Singh

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nicolas Denis)

I use machine sim once in awhile when it is very complex project. Othewise it is just an eyecandy when compared with Vericut. I made hundreds of part program without it and only a few using it especially when part is almost as big as machine Y-axis travel limits.

Recently I am using it again for prgroamming Fidia 5-axis. But I hate to say that yesteday I had to write a script to set the tool axis programatically because I didnt want to remove the machine and set toolaxis and then add the machine again.

I think there are lots of basic things need to be addressed before even begining to compare with Vericut. I'll write more later.

Roger Bombassei

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

The company I am currently working for does not have any kind of machine simulation.

It's not quite as bad as the days when we used to make a tool on plot of the part and lay a tool path plot over that on a light table.  Then slide circle templates along the tool path center lines to visualize the cutter path.

When programmers were men.... lol

In Reply to Dave Frank:



In Reply to Roger Bombassei:

We just verify on the machine.

I'd prefer to use MS but I can't afford it.

 

 

Hi Roger,

I think the idea is that your company is supposed to buy it.

....but, they have Vericut machine simulation don't they?

David Summerscales

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Samarinder Singh)

one main reason why vericut is better than catia for stimulation is "controller emulators" - you can build your own machines in Vericut - nuff said

Samarinder Singh

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to David Summerscales)

Hi,

Last time I checked Catia machine-simulation, I have observed the following things in my experience. It could have been improved in the latest versions but I don't have any resources to test it at my current job except Check-reach-ability.

IMHO

* RTCP doesn't work perfectly. Which totally renders it useless for full 5-axis complex jobs. If you slow down the simulation you'll will see it very clearly. If you still miss it then you need to slow the simulation further by running a partial simulation and setting time to a smallest values such as ".1s" Then again you may or may not see it if MOs are simple 5-axis motions.

* It cannot choose next orientation automatically in order to resolve singularity.(it needs too many machine instructions in the program which makes tree looks like a mess) Again it is an RTCP, Look-ahead problem.

* It can't even handle a toolchange position and check-reach-ability shows out of limits.And I have posted this in other topic before. RTCP problem.

* In milling it doesn't work with more than 5-axis especially if you have w-axis along with Z-axis.( again too many machine instructions in the tree, pretty much one before the toolchange and one after the toolchange for locking and unlocking auxiliary axes). And after that simulation still fails/interrupts

* Replay has limited option when compared to Vericut such as no reverse playback, single step forward or backward.

* Display machine only shows machine at either safety plane or previous activity position. It would be nice if it shows at current user defined position.

* Material removal simulation is extremely slow for large cgr/stl stocks.

* Slow simulation when distance and band analysis turned on.

* No controller emulator. And personally I would not want icam or ims or cenit or any third party who are post-processor developing companies. Because they would have the same mindset for writing controller for simulation.

 

Thanks,
Samarinder

Samarinder Singh

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Samarinder Singh)

I hope that nobody gets offended by my remarks/comments I made for machine simulator usage.

As I mentioned about it earlier in my first reply as 5 good points for having machine inside catprocess while programming complex jobs. The check-reach-ability is the best so I put it as no. 1

However I would like this to be enhanced when it says "out of limits". I would like to know which limits and by how much so user can adjust the tool-motion accordingly. Or even better if Catia calculates with an option to remove such tool-motion points from the trajectory using 2 more options (1. machine head, 2. travel limits). Machine head is simple if the spindle-head is round then it can be added into Holder definition. Or Holder definition can be enhanced for any shape which will be really good for Angle-holders and I have mentioned it in another topic.

Attached are the snapshots which take guess work out using this command. I measured the minimum distance and moved the tool-path by 0.600in by adding the offset at the bottom.

Thanks,
Samarinder
Attachments

  • Check-Reach-Ability1.pptx (188.7k)
Edited By:
Samarinder Singh[CUTPATH] @ Jan 23, 2012 - 08:24 PM (America/Pacific)

Bryan Carpio Felsher

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Samarinder Singh)

Check-reachability is cool...I guess...but I'd never spend my own time (= money) actually building machines just to use it.  I have yet to see where I couldn't get the same result, just by putting a 10" diameter on top of my tool holder, and backplotting or video-replaying it to test for head hitting.

When, it's really tight, I'll use a user rep.  You can use user-reps of any complexity in back-plot.  Maybe not in video replay, but check-reachabilit isn't video replay either.  I've used some pretty nasty user-reps for testing 90 degree heads on 6-axis machines, using nothing but standard Advanced Machining licenses.

99% of the time, don't need the 10" block, or the user rep.  For the 1% of the time, I wouldn't spend time making full machines, or even heads, and purchasing the very expensive license.  Just the truth....making good parts for a long time here, without needing it...

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)



In Reply to Dave Frank:

Hello Mark and my Friends, 

Before I make suggestions for improvement, I will state where CATIA is better.

 

1. The speed to zoom and rotate is Very Very fast compared to Vericut.

2. The integration, to work within one platform.

3. To be able to check Video after each MO , or periodically, to find and remove errors in the interactive session.

4. The ability to associate Video anywhere in the program, and resume Video from the points is great.

5. The ability to bring in a CGR, make it transparent, and use it to show remaining material. This is a common practice.

 

Verification Replay and Video top 10 requirements.

 

 

  1. Be able to measure from cutter to part, (without create geometry), both from the cutter dial, and also the bottom. Radii also. (This functionality is in UGNX)
  2. Be able to Reset Cut Color, both at will at a push of a button, and by a instruction on the CATIA PPR Tree.(This functionality is in Vericut)
  3. Be able to slow down and control speed of replay better. Need to be able to slow to a crawl when you need to see things. (This functionality is in Vericut. They have both a slider, and a way to control the step, and make the max step smaller independently from steps in tool path. Changing max descritization to slow down replay is not desirable. )
  4. The visual clarity needs to be improved and more realistic in CATIA Video. Perhaps enable PHOTO, for 5-axis?....In Vericut the image of the machined part is very realistic. Visual check of VIDEO is important. Just gouge and excess is not complete. You can see mismatches clearly in Vericut. I say "the best way to see something is to Look at it". Funny but very true. I machined a small 5-axis part 16 X 24 X 2 inches, with 4 pockets. In CATIA Replay, there were visually false mismatches, that were not really there. Also the visual did not show features that were very clear in Vericut.
  5. Be able to see same information of speed, feed, XYZIJK info you see in replay, in Video as well. Also, show XYZABC info, if you have a Kinematic Machine in the process. Have a setting to display the Axial and Radial DOC settings, as Video and replay are shown.
  6. Be able to see the CL path in VIDEO not just in Replay, and control N# of lines before and after the cutter. (This functionality is in Mastercam)
  7. Have additional methods of gouge detection, such as show CHUNKS of excess / gouged material. In Vericut the chunks are graphicly made into larger red smudges, so they are easy to see. You can get a report and every gouge is listed. When selecting a specific gouge in the report, the gouge is highlighted on the part, so you can zoom in as see if it is a real problem. In Vericut, you can measure a gouge............ In R19 DS adds a new gouge detection that shows in replay exact undercut of cutter and Design solid. Allow the same kind of absolute gouge detection in replay, in Video, on the current process, and also Aptsource from the Hard Drive. Same request for g-code with CE.
  8. Be able to entering a maximum allowable gouge and shrink the cutter for VIDEO only, to avoid false gouges due to tessellated models. Usually corner radii, and railtop radii will show false gouges because of faceting. This is done in Vericut, by having the software make the tool smaller by the given amount. Before Vericut implemented this enhancement, I would make a tool list for Vericut cutter geometry, and lie about the cutter diameter, and gage length, to do this. There is also a minimum allowable excess. Same principal: If you want .1 inch excess material, checking with a .099 radialy over size, extended .099 in gage length, and test this against the design solid, it is a FAST and simple way to insure.
  9. Implement volumetric feedrate control....... Optipath, only better because it is integrated into the Catprocess.
  10. In Video, be able to touch a machined area, and have the cutter move to that position. From there be able to replay CL and motion (without Metal removal), N# of lines before and after that position. This is very helpful to be able to quickly see what toolpath made a cut, and to easily replay the isolated motion.
  11. Vericut can check with exact accuracy , to a point file. Imaging a part 600 inches long and you must accurately check hole size and location within .0005 inches. Regular Vericut can not do this accuratly, but checking points to the cut stock is exact. (Credit Leonard Malstrom)

 

OK that was 11, not 10.... Guilty!

Did someone say it was too quiet??  Ha Ha Ha

Best Regards,

Dave

 



12.  Able to Section... with a push of a button.

 

How many of these are not done yet?


Dave Frank  *    Bell Helicopter *  Grand Prairie Texas

Advanced Computer Aided Manufacturing Systems Engineer

COE Product Co-Chairman, Digital Numerical Control

 

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Samarinder Singh)



In Reply to Samarinder Singh:

Hi,

I 'll try to stick to 5 points only.

Catia's good points

1. Check reachable position

2. optimize tool stick out distances, holder while programming

3. Collision/interference analysis

4  ability to define multiple rules for checking interference


5 nice graphics in user interface

 


Vericut' good points

1. ability to define any machine control without buying additional software

2. Multiple Simulation views and more control of viewpoint being attached to tool etc...

3. Create custom subroutines for tool change, head change, etc...
Whereas in Catia you have to insert lots of machine instructions and tree has more instructions then tool changes

4 autodiff and there is no comparison with Catia's video analysis of gouge/remaining material. I have top of the line video card(quadro6000 with 6gb of dedicated ram) and catia doesn't do any good in this area. Once you rotate/pan/zoom the image in 3d viewer it look garbage and takes more time to refresh.

5 more components kinematics such as table, tool changer, multi spindles, etc..

 

Why cant user use a machine instruction if machine is loaded inside Catia without MSG license? Because sometimes you can not use the machine sim if you dont have this command available. So it becomes pretty much useless and counterproductive when user removes the machine and adds the mo and then brings back the machine.

 



HI Samarinder,

Now that I am using MSG & MBG... I see what you are talking about.   without MSG... machine instruction Command is not even visable in the insert pulldown,  and disapears or does not appear on the auxiliary Operations tool bar.

So.... what to do?    How to implement with your suggestion?  

 A person would have to build a machine with MBG for CATIA to know what axis are there.  I agree that if you had build the machine, the functions should be available to create a machine instruction without MSG, just like check reachability.

It would be another step for ROI to get MBG in the first place. 

Thanks

Dave

 


Dave Frank  *    Aerospace Dynamics International, Valencia, Ca

5-Axis CNC Programmer

COE Product Co-Chairman, Digital Numerical Control

 

Nghi Pham

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Roger Bombassei)

Good Programmer doesn't need simulation, don't you think ?! ;-)))))

Edited By:
Nghi Pham[The Boeing Company] @ Apr 04, 2017 - 09:37 AM (America/Pacific)

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nghi Pham)

Don't need it if you are doing easy parts where there is no  chance of a machine collision.

Try doing a Thrust reverser Bifurcation with 20 inch gage tool, and let me know how that works out for you. :)

 


Dave Frank  *    Aerospace Dynamics International, Valencia, Ca

5-Axis CNC Programmer

COE Product Co-Chairman, Digital Numerical Control

 

Nghi Pham

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Dave Frank)

Dave, I am kidding, sir!

Edited By:
Nghi Pham[The Boeing Company] @ Apr 04, 2017 - 09:37 AM (America/Pacific)

Dave Frank

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Nghi Pham)

Yes, I figured you are kidding.  Noticed I had a smiley at my response :)

I say that for the benefit of the struggling NC programmer that does not EVEN have Vericut Machine simulation. Some managers actually believe you don't need it... even on 35 Degree machines.  I know a guy that STILL thinks that... even thought his programmer crashed 3 machines... one of them... the day it was released to the shop after purchase of just under one million american dollars. 

 

CATIA MS has it's problems. I listed them in this years Top Ten Requirements. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is the 2017 Top Ten.        

http://www.coe.org/p/fo/st/thread=29667

 

(1)    Machine Simulation.

  1. Fix situations where tool axis changes, and points change while adding removing machine. Perhaps solve with a move machine to part with button.
  2. Machine Builder, allow machine instructions and machine rotations without MSG License.
  3. Once a program is complete, you should be able to generate an Aptsource without a MSG license. Now, the machine instructions are dropped.
  4. Machine instructions, add button to set Z or W axis to accept current position. 
  5. Add button to remove Machine with one click, save 10 steps.
  6. Check reachability should show the machine position when current tool axis is out of limits. Now you just get an error.

Dave Frank  *    Aerospace Dynamics International, Valencia, Ca

5-Axis CNC Programmer

COE Product Co-Chairman, Digital Numerical Control

 

Edited By:
Dave Frank[PCC Aerostructures ] @ Apr 04, 2017 - 12:02 PM (America/Pacific)

Jorge Manuel Rincón, Ing

RE: CATIA SImulation vs. Vericut.........we need your input
(in response to Mark Chitjian)

Catia v5 machine simulation , cant calculate the volume removed of collisions in rapid moves, sorry dassault you cant do nothing agains vericut machine simulation.