BACKPLOT!!!

[Anonymous]

Who's genius idea was it to remove one of the most useful tools in the edit program...BACKPLOT!!

That function highlighted and aided in the fix up of bugs from the HSM software for example the blind hole inside profile bug, yes i know its fixed now but backplot was still detrimental in the catching and fixing of that code error.

Very poor communication and implementation on AD's side regarding this!!

Regards

ONE UNHAPPY CUSTOMER!

[Steinwerks]

Yup, lots of folks are upset. Luckily it can be worked around: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-support-forum/hsmedit-v6-2-with-inventor-hsm-2018/td-p/7011162

More discussion here (and was NOT put forth succinctly by Autodesk unfortunately): https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-beta-testing-english-deutsch/hsmworks-2018-r1-development-release...

[Anonymous]

@Steinwerks correct, @scottmoyse has helped me swap back to the old 2017, but like he mentioned 3 years and thats gone, lets hope AD actually listen to us and bring it back!!

[Anonymous]

There is no technical issue, AD simply doesn't want to keep paying Cimco for backplotting.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

There is no technical issue, AD simply doesn't want to keep paying Cimco for backplotting.

---

How do you know that?

[Greg_Haisley]

Think about it - why would ADSK remove a feature of the software that nobody complains about and that feature does a decent job.

Negative revenue seems to be the only logical reason to me.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@Camtool-Ind wrote:

Think about it - why would ADSK remove a feature of the software that nobody complains about and that feature does a decent job.

Negative revenue seems to be the only logical reason to me.

---

I understand that reasoning, but they said because of licensing. And that could also mean that their agreement included a clause that they couldn't develop certain kinds of software themselves. Or that they licensed CIMCO something in return that they didn't want to anymore.  Or CIMCO changed their license structure and prices, so Autodesk pays the same, get less?

My point is as long as nobody from Autodesk explains or someone else hears the actual story from others involved there is no way to know. And that post made it look like given fact. 

[Lonnie.Cady]

---

@Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:

Or CIMCO changed their license structure and prices, so Autodesk pays the same, get less?

---

Now that would be some irony there!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where have I heard that before??  Isn't that the exact point of this thread?  😉

If I were guess, HSMWorks had a pretty sweet license agreement with Cimco, since after all cimco was who the adaptive algorithm was developed for IIRC.  It is likely that agreement has expired.

[kb9ydn]

It would be nice to know what happened, but ultimately what really matters is what Autodesk is going to do about it.

Are they going to ignore it and just pretend like nothing happened?

Are they going to try and renegotiate the contract and bring it back later?

Are they going to work on their own editor/backplotter?

 Sorry, I couldn't help it!

C|

[LibertyMachine]

I'll take One and Three for a thousand, Alex!

[Anonymous]

Removing backplot is totally unacceptable long term. Nobody operating G-code puts out code to a machine without Cimco backplotting to verify first (unless they simply don't know better), machine graphics are slow and lack the maneuverability of backplotting on a PC (and last minute tweaks before it goes to the machine).

Perhaps they are banking on all of us using 2017 versions of the editor for the next year so they can save a few bucks on re-licensing from Cimco until 2019? Pretty lame.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Well,

Only one way to get the Autodesk side of the story:

 @al.whatmough Anything you can say about this?

[LibertyMachine]

I think this statement might be a bit overblown. Is Backplot handy and very useful to have? Absolutely. But, I'd be lying if I said that I backplot every job. If I make hand edits to my code, absolutely. If I'm helping someone on the forums trouble shoot some behavior, absolutely. If I'm programming my parts and running on my machine? Uh, not likely. I have CAM Simulation, I use that and call it good. And not once have I had something show up that wasn't in the Sim.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@LibertyMachine wrote:

I think this statement might be a bit overblown. Is Backplot handy and very useful to have? Absolutely. But, I'd be lying if I said that I backplot every job. If I make hand edits to my code, absolutely. If I'm helping someone on the forums trouble shoot some behavior, absolutely. If I'm programming my parts and running on my machine? Uh, not likely. I have CAM Simulation, I use that and call it good. And not once have I had something show up that wasn't in the Sim.

---

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

We don't backplot every job either, except when it comes to turning programs... which is precisely where we noticed it was missing right away. Out on the shop floor, where programmers make tweaks to new and existing programs using Cimco backplot (at all the terminals), we're covered because we pay for those Cimco licenses. in Engineering where the programs originate, we absolutely do check our posted programs before they go out, because HSM is not perfect and it *does* produce errors which are not visible in CAM simulation, which are blatantly obvious in code... and the quickest way to follow G-code is to follow it through Backplot while reading code (as opposed to code alone, which I spent many many years doing).

Nobody who reads G-code should be without Backplot if productivity is important to you.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

We don't backplot every job either, except when it comes to turning programs... which is precisely where we noticed it was missing right away. Out on the shop floor, where programmers make tweaks to new and existing programs using Cimco backplot (at all the terminals), we're covered because we pay for those Cimco licenses. in Engineering where the programs originate, we absolutely do check our posted programs before they go out, because HSM is not perfect and it *does* produce errors which are not visible in CAM simulation, which are blatantly obvious in code... and the quickest way to follow G-code is to follow it through Backplot while reading code (as opposed to code alone, which I spent many many years doing).

Nobody who reads G-code should be without Backplot if productivity is important to you.

---

For Turning it's indeed a lot different than milling.

I mean with Milling you easily lose the overview on what is really going on. But for turning the paths are in one plane so that's much clearer.

I am curious now though. Is the generated path wrong or is the posted code sometimes wrong. Because I'm not completely sure how many thing there are that you would see in the backplot but not in a simulation. Not saying there aren't any, just that I'm not sure of those at this moment.

[kb9ydn]

---

@LibertyMachine wrote:

I think this statement might be a bit overblown. Is Backplot handy and very useful to have? Absolutely. But, I'd be lying if I said that I backplot every job. If I make hand edits to my code, absolutely. If I'm helping someone on the forums trouble shoot some behavior, absolutely. If I'm programming my parts and running on my machine? Uh, not likely. I have CAM Simulation, I use that and call it good. And not once have I had something show up that wasn't in the Sim.

---

Honestly I hardly ever use backplot either.  The annoying part though is not just that they took it out, but that there was no advanced notice of it.  It may not be a primary feature but it is important to some people.  How hard would it be to issue a simple statement about it with the 2018 release?  You know like "Hey, we're sorry we had to take the backplot feature out.  Such and such happened and there was nothing we could do about it.  Here's how we're going to address this going forward."

The overwhelming silence makes it seem like Autodesk just doesn't care, or like someone seriously dropped the ball on this.

C|

[shaun]

Easy to lose track in turning code as well, when dealing with complex parts (lots of tools and profiles, detailed face groove work etc). Backplot is always a huge help in complicated programs, lately with a bunch of groove and face-groove turning, we would be lost without the Cimco Backplot. This is mostly due to how terrible HSM is currently with groove cycles, it will often take 5-7 operations to do a single groove properly and even after it looks good in HSM, it will need to be carefully checked in Cimco (we have caught it several times now producing G2/G3 lines which contain errors causing the machine to stop mid-cut). HSM for Inventor has no actual "Simulation", only graphics, so it will not register these faulty lines and they remain unnoticed until A) code expert catches it in review, or B) machine catches it and the machinist plays with code or a programmer/engineer goes out to stare at the control for half an hour trying to interpret the issue.

Another fine example is with aggregate tooling on numerous controls: HSM has no support for this so the programmers must make due in code... try doing that without a backplot eh? Good way to set yourself up for a crash.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Easy to lose track in turning code as well, when dealing with complex parts (lots of tools and profiles, detailed face groove work etc). Backplot is always a huge help in complicated programs, lately with a bunch of groove and face-groove turning, we would be lost without the Cimco Backplot. This is mostly due to how terrible HSM is currently with groove cycles, it will often take 5-7 operations to do a single groove properly and even after it looks good in HSM, it will need to be carefully checked in Cimco (we have caught it several times now producing G2/G3 lines which contain errors causing the machine to stop mid-cut). HSM for Inventor has no actual "Simulation", only graphics, so it will not register these faulty lines and they remain unnoticed until A) code expert catches it in review, or B) machine catches it and the machinist plays with code or a programmer/engineer goes out to stare at the control for half an hour trying to interpret the issue.

Another fine example is with aggregate tooling on numerous controls: HSM has no support for this so the programmers must make due in code... try doing that without a backplot eh? Good way to set yourself up for a crash.

---

To be honest I've not encountered any of the problems you are describing here. I mean there were issues with using R in G2/G3, which is mainly due to the limitation of that kind of code, not so much the toolpaths, but haven't seen G2/G3's error out a machine...

Aggregate tooling? You program that by hand now? And why don't you program it in HSM? I mean the Tool orientation and a good post processor would work fine for that.

I would love the backplot back, let me be clear on that, not trying to argue that.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Guys,

Even though you will probably see this yourself.

A link to the statement about this issue: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-support-forum/hsm-2018-editor-and-backplot/td-p/7043161