Poll: Partmaker Enhancement

[aclark]

I am a relatively new user to Partmaker. I have been using it for less than a year now and have found many things that I like about it, and many that leave something to be desired. For users that still use Partmaker despite the FeatureCAM merger, I was thinking we could start posting enhancement requests here and have the community weigh in on their usefulness, in hopes that Autodesk will implement them sooner rather than later. We are, after all, the community that drives their revenue stream for this product. Eventually it would be nice to have a dedicated Partmaker forum and a sub-forum for enhancements where we can post actual polls with voting options. The same could be done for FeatureCAM and all other software forums to really emphasize the community enhancements we want and need, not just what the parent company thinks is important.

I have about a dozen of these to post if this catches on. So here goes...

I would like to see an enhancement in Partmaker Mill to allow the combination of rough and finish toolpaths into a "group" in the process table which would allow the output of code to follow a rough-finish-rough-finish strategy instead of a rough-rough-finish-finish strategy. This would only apply when the same tool is doing the roughing and finishing, but seems like it would apply to a lot of shops in my opinion. We manufacture a number of parts with extensive hole patterns and pocket patterns which are roughed and finished with the same tool and, currently, the only way to get the desired output I speak of here is to program each feature independently and organize the process table accordingly. If this is not done then the machine spends a significant amount of time in rapid mode moving from hole to hole multiple times. The same is true for pockets that are patterned. This type of enhancement could save 20 minutes or more each time it is used on complex parts. It would be quicker than programming every feature independently even if there were only a few, so it would save time every time it is used. As an added benefit, it would greatly simplify the process table by eliminating all of the erroneous processes, making feed and speed changes much quicker if necessary. Even more time saved!

What do you guys think?

[lknight]

I've been waiting to see if anyone else replied to this, but its been a month now & not a single response, too bad.

I agree with you & will cast my vote as "FOR"

I share your concerns & also have some change requests, but we may be "going" in the wind here...

I even looked in the IDEAS area on the website here as one of the emails I received suggested, but there is no Partmaker section to post in, I did not even see a section for Featurecam

[tstudley]

I have a few things I would like to see changed added, (tool holders putting out G50 shifts) but I will need a bit of time to explain it properly.

[lknight]

The only machine I program that uses G50 is a Citizen Swiss.

It will output G50's when I put the shift amount in the Tool Properties.

Or are you looking for the G50 to be output for a different purpose?

[tstudley]

Yeh on our Citizen M32, we have like you put the offsets in the tool data and this kicks out the G50 for us but if you have holders with 2 or 3 different positions on them the only way to get the 2 or 3 different G50s output is to give each operation/tool position a different offset number, unfortunately we have limited offsets on the machine. 

[aclark]

This is something the development team at Partmaker should be able to handle for you in your post, if it is not already possible. I would really recommend contacting them with a description of your problem and desired solution. It also really helps to have an example of your current posted code without any edits and a sample of the code after you have modified it and proofed it out. This allows them to know exactly what you're looking for. I have found them very helpful with issues like this in the past (and yes, we are also running Citizen Swiss machines). If they cannot provide a solution, then hopefully we can get a forum for making requests like this!

[RobertZoober]

I would recommend learning ConfigPost, so that you can make post improvements on your own.

We have ConfigPost Pro, and are able to do almost unlimited mods to the post, including creating your own user conditions and customizing cycles.

We have added full support for long parts, gun drills, etc, and are completely post and play, with zero hand edits.

As far as enhancements go, I would like to see the text fields opened up to more characters for tools and processes, along with the ability to alter the text of the multicoolant and drill cycles (along with the ability to grey out the non used cycles or coolant types) to be controlled via post or some type of config file.

Also, the ability to edit feeds along a contour in mill profiles just like we can in the turning profiles using the i icon. 

[lknight]

Yes! having room for more text/characters in ALL fields would be great! I posted that one on the old Partmaker forum a while back.

As well as the "Stay at Depth" drop box choice being available on ALL milling, not just Contour-Tool Location-On.

I too have several other requests.....

[tstudley]

So I would like partmaker to know that if I use a different station on the tool holder that it needs to look at the offset in the tool data and out put the G50 for that tool.

[aclark]

Again, I think you should contact Partmaker to see if they can provide a solution for this problem. This should be a very simple modification for them.

[RobertZoober]

The problem with trying to pull the Station ID is there is no information passed to the post from Tool Assembly. It is used for machine sim only.

As lknight says, most posts use the tool shift. It would be a fairly easy mod to the post.

I'm sure support could do it in a short time if you are not comfortable editing the post.

The posts are pretty robust, and I haven't run into anything yet that can't be done, even if you have to use a user condition or parameter.

[tstudley]

I have contacted partmaker, and was told the only way to get the three different G50s was to either call for a different tool number or different offset.

I posted this here as I think it would "enhance" the product if tool offsets could be output depending on station used. At the moment it is far easier and safer for us to just add the tool offsets manually.

[aclark]

I'm pretty surprised by that. In that case, we'll make it an enhancement request!

I'll see if I can get a hold of someone at Autodesk to try to get a new forum activated for Partmaker specific issues. I think it would be beneficial to differentiate between FeatureCAM and Partmaker, at least for the time being.

[favreau.v]

I would like to see them fix the Material Speeds and feeds window. Every time you open it, the pop up window gets smaller. I also think some upgrades to this feature (material S & F)would be helpful. 

[favreau.v]

No Response on this?? Am I the only one who is having this problem? I have gone through 2017 and 2018 with multiple upgrades and still this is not fixed. Seems like a problem that most users would want to be addressed. I can't believe that it is a difficult issue. It wasn't always like this.

[aclark]

I've basically given up hope on the FeatureCAM bundle. Autodesk has chosen to focus on "prettying up" FeatureCAM instead of fixing it's bugs and is essentially just ignoring Partmaker. Between the unforgiving new pricing model and the lack of decent support for software issues, we will be evaluating other software packages this coming year for mill and turn. We will likely revert to a pre-Autodesk version of Partmaker for our Swiss machines.

I wish I had a better answer, but the writing is on the wall for this particular CAM package. I won't say they are doomed since I watched CAMWorks dig themselves out of a hole one software version at a time, but it doesn't look good right now.

[RobertZoober]

Ya, I am looking into our exit strategy also.

We have bullet proof posts, that do everything our machines can do. So upgrading isn't  major priority, but future support is.