CamBam

Support => Related Softwares => Topic started by: kjlpdx on January 08, 2014, 03:20:16 am



Title: cutviewer
Post by: kjlpdx on January 08, 2014, 03:20:16 am
what is the deal with cutviewer?  it cost as much as cambam and doesn't work correctly.  the zoom feature is just flat out buggy.  it jumps around, rotates the piece, and is totally annoying.  I also get many incorrect rapids collision warnings and incorrect depths when I run it.  I'd like my money back.  I think cambam should be embarrassed to be associated with such poorly written software.


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: coolant slinger on January 08, 2014, 23:33:16 pm
I Would Get In Touch with Stan At Tech Suppot With Cutviewer Issues. He Has Helped Me Before.  In The Mean Time Let Us All Know When You Can Find A Simulator Better And Comparable In Price.If So You Probably Would Have purchsed it.


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 09, 2014, 00:04:05 am
I have to be honest.  I tested CutViewer and decided not to buy it.  I downloaded it at a time when I had a couple days to play with it, and I spent a couple days playing with it.  It will handle simple jobs just fine, but any of the complex 3D jobs I tested it with just caused it to crash.  I didn't even hit it with any of my really big jobs.  I tested it with jobs that will cut in under 4 hours.  Every one I used to test it was one I had already actually cut successfully.  I just regened the code using the CV post. 

I liked the high resolution rendering, but it failed to complete the jobs.  Even single tool jobs. 

CamBam actually works.  It doesn't use real solid geometry, but it does work.  I really don't think CutViewer works fully.  If they come out with a new release I will try it again, but I spent two full days (plus some time on the next couple days) putting it through its paces, and for me its not worth it yet. 












Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: kjlpdx on January 09, 2014, 01:55:07 am
I was once a computer programmer for McDonnell-douglas.  the idea of releasing software that didn't work was inconceivable.  well, any place I worked we wouldn't release buggy software.  just try to zoom or create cross sections and you find errors.  not to mention the scroll wheel doesn't work for zooming.  CAMBAM works fine for me.  I expect the same from cutviewer.  I doubt I can get my money back, but I can warn future buyers to be disappointed and irritated by this pkg.
I build and fly experimental aircraft.  I had a fuel flow meter in my plane at one time.  after much playing around I realized that I didn't trust this device, I was constantly trying to calibrate it, and removed it.  this is how I feel about cutviewer now.  I run it, but I don't trust what it says.  at least with cutviewer my life isn't on the line.  my guess is that someone wrote some code, sold a few copies, and now a spouse or grandchild or whoever is trying to milk it for all it's worth.  I appreciate the effort that is put into CAMBAM.  it is a real product.


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 09, 2014, 02:50:05 am
Don't get me started on McDonald Douglas. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on January 09, 2014, 11:26:36 am
this is how I feel about cutviewer now.  I run it, but I don't trust what it says.
----------
Oh, but you SHOULD!  Remember the IFR mantra, "Always believe your worst instrument!"

<G>

Lloyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 09, 2014, 15:15:12 pm
I Follow Roads ? 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on January 09, 2014, 16:33:31 pm
Heh!  Yeah!

I did all the hood time, all the 'actual' time, and sat for (and passed) the written, but I refused to take the check ride for the endorsement.

I was flying at the time "in the pursuit of business", and had a boss who'd have forced me to fly in actual IFR conditions, if I had possessed the endorsement; so I prepared myself in the case I should ever be caught in 'conditions', but just never got the ticket.

It paid off - in both counts - because I did get caught a couple of times, and because I never had to intentionally go out in the soup.

Lloyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: kjlpdx on January 09, 2014, 18:06:33 pm
I am a VFR-only pilot of 15 years, 2000 hrs.  another RV pilot at my airport flies for Horizon airlines.  he says it takes a commercial-sized jet to carry all the equipment needed for safe IFR flight.  the more I fly the more I appreciate what he says. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on January 09, 2014, 18:38:46 pm
Yep.  Familiarity with the airframe helps a lot, too.

I had about 600+ hours in a Cherokee Archer - one tail number.  So I knew every squeak and rattle in the bird.

One moonless, overcast night, I took off from a small private strip just south of Daytona Beach.  There was NO horizon reference, because I couldn't even see the treeline!  I couldn't see anything!

Then... the fun began -- It was a short, un-lit field, and just after rotation I had a generalized failure of all my pitot-static instruments!  Rate-of-climb/descent jumped up suddenly to around +1500 and stuck there (impossible in that model!)

If I hadn't known exactly how that aircraft felt and sounded during a proper ascent, I'd have probably buried it.

As it was, I finally got high enough to see the beacon and lights at Daytona, and jogged over there to put her down again by eye.  Whew!

I always do a careful pre-flight (been accused of doing a 100-hour inspection!), but a small wasp had burrowed up into the static hole in the horn, and build a mud nest up inside.... (urk!)

LLoyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: kvom on January 10, 2014, 13:14:11 pm
As long as we're sharing private pilot stories, I'll chime in.  I was already a college grad when I got out of the Army in 1973, so used my GI Bill for flying lessons in south Florida.  I had gotten the private ticket while still in the service.  Did the commercial, IFR, multi, and started the instructor.  In those days Ft. Lauderdale wasn't very busy so you could practice IFR approaches there.

I used the hours for commercial to fly on vacations and for work.  The only actual IFR flight I had was coming back from Orlando, when I declared IFR-enroute.

My favorite airtime was flying at night between Tampa and Miami, with all the coast lit up in front of me.

Moved to Canada in 77 and never flew again.





Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Garyhlucas on January 10, 2014, 19:21:12 pm
They don't have airplanes in Canada Eh?


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on January 10, 2014, 19:27:44 pm
Heh!  I'll let him say it, but depending upon the reason you went to Canada in the 70's, it might be hard to get re-licensed on that side of the line. <G>

LLoyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 11, 2014, 05:03:12 am
1977 would be a bit late for that. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: kvom on January 11, 2014, 11:15:10 am
Since it was after my army service I wasn't avoiding the draft.   ::)  But I would have had to relicense and I had no need to fly for work (other than Air Canada)


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: coolant slinger on January 11, 2014, 18:57:38 pm
Guys,
I'd love to hear more flight stories, but back to Cutviewer. Now that you mention it I have had instances where the measurement tool was giving me a false measururement when I zoom in and out alot. It seemed to measre correctly only after I resimulated it. I think the zooming in and out confuses it. I have had it to lock up at times, But not very often. I would say I am generally pleased. Has anyone else had the measurments to be off after zooming?


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 12, 2014, 01:18:48 am
I never really used the measuring tool.  I tried simulation of simple parts, and complex parts.  Simple stuff looked ok.  Complex 3D stuff locked it up every time, and in many cases showed visual defects that were not actually in the cut part.  I tested it with proven designs that cut properly.  I even posted some screenshots here on the CB forum. 

My trial period has expired now, and I will not pay to experiment further.  If it worked for me I would, but it didn't. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on January 12, 2014, 01:22:55 am
I guess I have to differ with the consensus here.  I will agree that CV is full of bugs, inadequacies, and oddities.  But it works better than anything else in its price range.

I use it almost daily, and use the measurement tools a lot.  And zoom.  I've never had a problem with them, except that there are important measuring tools MISSING I'd love to have.

When I asked for help from them, the dealer was useless, but the author jumped in quickly and resolved my problems.

For me, it was definitely worth the price.  It's saved me a lot of crashed tools and fubar'd work pieces.

Lloyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: kjlpdx on January 13, 2014, 18:11:26 pm
before I got into this cnc stuff I used to love to go to van's aircraft and watch their machine punch out sheet metal parts.  it has an auto stock feed and moves the table around as it punches up 4x8' sheets of AL.  I believe they are now also pre-dimpling too.
my plane is old enough that I had to drill all the rivet holes and dimple.  my wings took a year a year to build and required a jig.  my second plane was pre-punched.  no jig needed, wings took 1 month.  it was unbelievable how accurate the holes were.  pop in one clecoe and a dozen holes would line up, a long ways from drilling a hole and praying that you hit the center of the rib flange.


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 13, 2014, 18:22:29 pm
Well, for a crude modeling tool I am currently using free CNC Simulator Pro (suggested by Bubba), and I am considering buying a license for it.  After I upgrade my CAD/CAM computer and get everything transferred over I'll see how it performs.  I have already found some tricks for making it run faster and improving resolution.  I don't know if it has any measuring tools since I haven't looked.  It does not provide as a sharp of a model as CutViewer, but its easier to use (IMO) and it hasn't crashed or locked up on anything I have tried so far. 

Its time for me to start building some tool libraries now for consistency between programs. 







Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: atwooddon on January 13, 2014, 18:57:24 pm
Bob,

I am also using CNC Simulator Pro (free version) and it works pretty well.  I also need to setup my tool libraries so they match CNC Simulator and I don't have to set up a tool each time.  Not a CNC Simulator problem, just my laziness.   I don't care for the CNC Simulator business model but that is a minor nit.  I have tried a few other simulators including Cutviewer and for my needs CNC Simulator works fine.

Don


Title: Re: cutviewer alternatives
Post by: nifty1a on January 14, 2014, 12:46:06 pm
I'm a new CAMBAM user, but have got it up and running relatively quickly and been cutting MDF and acrylic 2.5D stuff quite nicely.

I was looking around t'interweb for Gcode simulators as alternatives to Cutviewer (free preferably :-) ),

and found OpenSCAM http://openscam.com/wiki (http://openscam.com/wiki), and was wondering if anyone else on here had any recent experience of it? (I found mention of it on here from Jan and July last year but nothing more recent).

Is it worth spending time getting up to speed with it?

Just wondering....


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on January 14, 2014, 15:20:52 pm
I tried OpenSCAM.  It does a fair job of modeling the cut, but its very unstable and some of the coolest features were never finished.  I don't know this for a fact, but I got the impression that no development has been done on it for a long time either.  It took me a little while to wade through and figure out how to get it to work, but it wasn't a days long task or anything like that.  Maybe an hour or so. If it was ever finished and cleaned up I would certainly try it again. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: PetefromTn on January 31, 2014, 17:39:07 pm
Just now working with CamBam and trying to decide if I will purchase it (probably so far it looks like a great value) and have been doing a lot of simulation work to determine if the code generated is good and also to check my own toolpaths for mistakes in my setup in CamBam.  I started by downloading the CNCsimulator PRo free version and at first could not get it to do anything so did some searching here and found Cutviewer.  Downloaded it and tried it.  Initially I was impressed with Cutviewer but once I learned how to properly setup CNCsimpro it is a much nicer program IMHO>  The only thing that is annoying is their occasional ten second advert you gotta wait thru but if it continues to impress my I may purchase it.  I will say that it does everything I have asked it to do. Only found one issue that may be something I messed up but when I did a G83 code as posted by CamBam it had five holes but the simulation only drilled one hole five times.  I have since modded the post to make the G83 modal but I have not checked to see if that fixed anything.  Either way CNCsimpro is pretty sweet and it is actually quite nice to see the whole machine simulated. Have not tried to sim a vise or anything not sure if you can but just simulating the workpiece and toolpaths and seeing the cutter and shaft sizes is pretty valuable.  Once I learned how to work with it I can post the code to it and get it running in a couple minutes if not sooner. 

   Bob,  I would love to hear about those tweaks to make it run faster and whatever man I would like to try them. On a large 3d file it could take a good while to watch it run so that could be useful.  Please share if you do not mind. Peace

Pete


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on February 04, 2014, 00:18:07 am
Turn off the g-code display.  Reduce the image quality.  Turn off work piece display.  Run it using a high end gaming video card like one of the better Radeon cards, and not an onboard video card.  

Its still not going to be super fast, but you can definitely see the difference.  

Yeah, I had an issue with DRILL operations too.  I think I also had an issue with arc mode when I set it to absolute in gcode generation.  I have not looked into either of those things further yet.  

I don't mind the commercial too much. 





Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on March 29, 2014, 17:48:59 pm
There is a new release of OpenSCAM.  I'm going to check it out right now.  Just saw this on the LinuxCNC site. 

Quote from: jcoffland
Hello, I'm the author of OpenSCAM. I just released a new version which uses Qt. It has some bug fixes and now works on OS-X. If you have any .nc files which don't simulate please create a ticket on the GitHub page and attach the file or send it to me by email. I will fix it and it will help make the software better.

Check out the new Website too: openscam.org/
GitHub: github.com/CauldronDevelopmentLLC/OpenSCAM


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on March 30, 2014, 02:41:27 am
I just did some simulations with the new OpenSCAM, and I was quite impressed.  It can be either fast or high resolution.  It actually showed me a problem, and I didn't believe it so I went out and ruined a work piece.  It doesn't automatically pick up the inch mode (G20) from the G-Code, and it still crashes if you try to export an STL file of the finished work piece, but it is so much better than the last version I evaluated.  It also doesn't support arc mode absolute.  I had to create G-Code with Arc Mode incremental or I got crop circles. 

It has come a long way.  I may make a donation to the guy working on it.  I had thought he quit, but the newest release was just 5 or 6 days ago. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on March 30, 2014, 13:19:43 pm
I tried the earlier V1 versions, and just downloaded the newer one.  I set it up to do a simulation of those trays I cut last week.  If I don't declare any 'real' tools, it renders in a minute or two, but of course, it doesn't give a faithful representation of the finished job.

If I do define the tools properly, it takes longer to render (at medium-low resolution) than it does to run the job!  Many of the examples provided render quickly, but they are simplistic jobs;  This is a big job (in terms of total tool movement), and it's just not useful if it takes that long to render.

It still has a bunch of shortcomings, Bob.  Many of the (even EMC2) codes are still not recognized, and it can't read tool info, even when it's provided in the EMC2 format.

It creates a nicer final rendering than CutViewer, but I wouldn't say it's exactly a useful package yet;  more like a worthy experiment that's getting better every day.

Lloyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: pixelmaker on March 30, 2014, 14:09:11 pm
hello

Quote
There is a new release of OpenSCAM
Thank you to point this. This is the first working free simulation for Mac OSX. This makes the work a bit faster.
I try it a bit today but weather is to nice to work inside. So I will test it this evening.
@Lloyd:
Quote
If I do define the tools properly, it takes longer to render (at medium-low resolution) than it does to run the job!
The first job I imported in openscam is a 3D work with roughing and finishing. The nc file is 16.6Mb.
The real milling time of this job is about 25 hours and the toolpath lenght is 1212321.61.
In the file I worke with a 6mm Endmill, a 3mm endmill and a 3mm ballnose. After creating this tools in openscam the rerender of the toolpath and the workpiece needs 28 seconds.
With the setting of the resolution to "high" it needs 96 seconds
With the setting of the resolution to "very high" it needs 155 seconds.
Very helpfull is that the speed of the simulation can be set to 65536x original time
Now after playing a bit openscam don´t rerun the simulation and don´t rebuild the cutted part.
It looks that I found the limits  ;D
Now I saved the file in openscam and reopen it and it works again.

ralf


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on March 30, 2014, 14:52:53 pm
Ralf,

If I render the job with two flat-ended end mills, it takes mere seconds to render.  If I render with a ball nose and chamfer (and nothing else changed), it takes well over an hour to render.

Since the whole job is cut (deeply) by a ball-end mill, I presume there are many 'interpolations' being made to the work profile during that, but not happening when a straight end mill is used.

Mine is not a high-end graphics machine, so probably slower than yours.   But the fact that I can elicit that behavior simply by changing the tool profiles says to me that something in the algorithm is attending to the shapes very closely -- perhaps with more internal resolution than the rendering is set for.

LLoyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on March 30, 2014, 16:45:28 pm
hello

Quote
There is a new release of OpenSCAM
Thank you to point this. This is the first working free simulation for Mac OSX. This makes the work a bit faster.
I try it a bit today but weather is to nice to work inside. So I will test it this evening.
@Lloyd:
Quote
If I do define the tools properly, it takes longer to render (at medium-low resolution) than it does to run the job!
The first job I imported in openscam is a 3D work with roughing and finishing. The nc file is 16.6Mb.
The real milling time of this job is about 25 hours and the toolpath lenght is 1212321.61.
In the file I worke with a 6mm Endmill, a 3mm endmill and a 3mm ballnose. After creating this tools in openscam the rerender of the toolpath and the workpiece needs 28 seconds.
With the setting of the resolution to "high" it needs 96 seconds
With the setting of the resolution to "very high" it needs 155 seconds.
Very helpfull is that the speed of the simulation can be set to 65536x original time
Now after playing a bit openscam don´t rerun the simulation and don´t rebuild the cutted part.
It looks that I found the limits  ;D
Now I saved the file in openscam and reopen it and it works again.

ralf

There is a little circular arrow icon below the render screen that will cause it to re-render the job.  It is not high contrast and its hard to see.  I didn't notice it at all for a while.  I think it should be in the top tools, but to each author their own style I guess. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: lloydsp on March 30, 2014, 17:27:45 pm
I've kept fooling with it to see where it's going.  It has a couple of 'quirks' (maybe bugs) that make some things not work in all resolutions.

I was dropping the resolution slowly, trying to see what would render in a reasonable time, and still produce a useful image.  (BTW... nothing ever made it render quickly enough to be useful with the ball-nose tool defined).

Anyway -- I reached a resolution where it would render fairly quickly for my job (in under ten minutes), but when it did, the smoothed solid really didn't look much like the real profile.  Then I dropped the resolution just one more notch, and it skipped about 1/4 of the holes in the project.  Different resolutions at and around that point would cause variable results -- some skipping only a hole or two, some missing nearly half of them.

At HIGH resolution, his solids look a lot better than CutViewer's, so I hope he continues to build this product and to optimize it.  But right now, it just doesn't do what I need in the shop.  I think he's going to need to completely re-vamp some of the algorithms to make it useful.

Another thing that needs attention is his reporting of problems with the gcode.  Initially, I used my Centroid code just to test it.  I already knew it was expecting EMC2.   It just wouldn't produce any output.  It didn't say why; didn't say _anything_.  It just didn't Do anything.  When I switched to EMC2 codes, it started to work; natch.

Lloyd


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on March 31, 2014, 16:03:49 pm
It seemed to work with Mach 3 codes as well.  I only had long render times on the higher resolutions, and I did a test job with a variety of cutters.  I didn't run any really big jobs with it though.  I'll post some screen shots later if I have time.  The computer I am using for it is a dual core 32bit XP box w/ 4Gb of memory and a dual head Radeon video card.  (I added the Radeon card)  While it was pretty hot for its day, I bought it as a factory refurb from Tiger Direct several years ago.  In fact I used it as a generic machine controller until my accounting computer started to go bad. My test code was about 4000 or 5000 lines. 

It doesn't like face mills either.  0.78"~ apx I think is the largest cutter size its currently setup to support. 

I always thought it had great potential.  I am just glad the author is still working on it. 


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: pixelmaker on March 31, 2014, 20:27:46 pm
 
Quote
0.78"~ apx I think is the largest cutter size
I try a 100mm (3.93") cutter as a cylinder cutter and it works.

I have no problems with the rendering time if I can work with native mac OSX software. This takes advantage of the power of my machine.
In contrary to CutViewer (under windows in parallels desktop) you can extremely speed up the rendering time. For a tested file with 600000 lines of g code cutviewer needs a half hour, Openscam with the high resolution only some minutes.
But for the analysis of NC programs lack important functions.
• I can´t see the nc code.
• I can´t see the result of different tools, can´t switch one of. With the different colors in CV I can see wrong toolpath/ wrong values but not with the summary representation.
• the chronology of the used tools is important in a analysis.

Nice to see, but the toolpath viewer in cambam is more helpfull. My favorite software for toolpath analysis is the NC Corrector.

ralf


Title: Re: cutviewer
Post by: Bob La Londe on March 31, 2014, 20:32:16 pm
Quote
NC Corrector v4.0, a free (except the Russian Federation) editor visualizer programs for CNC milling machines (G-code).
 

LOL