----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Hoke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 5:46 PM Subject: [mfg-smartcam] Dead Product
> To all SmartCAM users: > > I have been following the lament that SmartCAM is dead; SmartCAM is the > best thing since sliced bread; and why can't SDRC do something to support > it, with increasing annoyance. To all of you I say, "Grow up!! SmartCAM is > dead - move on!!" > > If you all want to collectively go crawl into a corner and cry about how > SmartCAM is dead and no one wants to support it then go ahead. The ones > who understand life, will leave you in the dust to rot. There have been > many good things in life that have died only to be replaced by something > better. Such is the case with SmartCAM. > > The '39 Ford coupe was a good car, but it was replaced by newer technology. > The B-17 was a good war plane but it was replaced by newer technology. > COMPACT-II was a very good lathe package - it died and was replaced by > newer technology. APT was (and still is) a good product, but there are a > hell of a lot of products that are better. SmartCAM was good but it too > will be replaced. > > None of you have a clue to life about technology. SDRC made a very sound > business decision to stop supporting that particular technology. And to me > it was for a very good reason. More and more customers are wanting things > SmartCAM and other 'hobby cam packages can never offer - associativity of > NC programs to engineering geometry. If engineering changes the NC > automatically updates. Your hobby cam packages simply don't have the horse > power to build, support, and handle the intense engineering data being > created these days. > > That is why SDRC, Dassualt/IBM, Unigraphics, and PTC are investing millions > to create associated data bases from design to manufacturing. That is why > they are building NC packages that allow users to capture frequently used > data and reuse it on other jobs. None of your hobby cam packages have a > snow balls chance in hell of doing that. Having to pass data from a major > system to hobby cam looses all of that. > > The statement made recently about being able to learn SmartCAM in three > days is absolutely ridiculous. My company inherited several hundred > SmartCAM programs, and decided to try to train someone to use the SmartCAM > seat we also inherited. After two weeks of hands on training by a local > user, we are no farther along with SmartCAM than we were before. Yes we > can make some programs. Yes we can generate some code. But no we are not > proficient enough after two weeks to be able to handle all of the > programming situations that arise on a daily basis. I take offense at you claiming that it's impossible to learn Smartcam in 3 days. The company I currently have worked for during the last 6 years came up to me one day 5 years ago and threw Compact II at me and said we need programs now. Within a week I was cranking out acceptable code without assistance. I was told they needed a new programmer full time. I was working out in the shop at the time so I jumped at the chance and was sent to a 3 day class for Pmill. After 3 days I was expected to create programs that worked, which I did. I will admit that yes, I did cheat. I did have 11 years experience running 3 axis vertical machining centers and did dabble in Fanuc macros a bit when the need arose. Smartcam was written for the guy in the small shop who needs code yesterday, not next month. It is set up in a way that somebody with a high proficiency at manually programming simple G-code on the shop floor can learn it fast and produce something useful. My advice to you is to sit down and evaluate who it is that is getting the training. In my book if somebody can't handle it after at least a week of hands on training, then it's time to either train or hire somebody better qualified. NC programming is not for everybody. A good hands on knowledge of your shop's equipment and several years of cutting different materials using different methods and tooling should be a prerequisite and can mean the difference between success and failure. From what I have seen, indivuduals who fail at learning one cam package are bound to fail at any other packages that come along. > I have been in this business since 1966, and have never seen any > programming system that could be learned in 3 days. It hasn't existed in > 34 years, and I don't see it in the near horizon. And that goes for APT, > UCC-APT, Westinghouse CIN-TURN macro package, LATHESEQ, CADAM NC, and CATIA > NC. Each package had/has it's strengths and weaknesses. You don't sit in > a corner and cry about not being able to do your job because it doesn't run > like I want it to. You get your ass in gear and make it work to the best > of it's ability, and learn how to work around the faults. And that > philosophy will never change my friends. > > If you put any well trained, seasoned operator (such as Mr. Lazarus) on any > system, he/she will be able to make it dance an Irish jig and whistle Dixie > at the same time. The complaints about long training on new systems are > unfounded and basically "crying in your beer." You had to invest time in > SmartCAM - so will you on a new system. > > As far as those programs we inherited goes - they are absolute junk. And > this guy supposedly had three years experience in programming. Every > program is being converted to CATIA as they come up for re-run. So it goes > to say, it's not totally the package being good or bad. It's the > experience of the people, and how willing they are to invest the time in > learning new skills and making things work to the best advantage possible. > Something you SmartCAM folks seem dead set against doing. You apparently don't have a clue here. Most of us are willing to move on to the first new cam package that comes along, provided that it gives us the speed, dependability, flexibility, and and of use we have grown accustomed to. I for one will gladly use the first one that comes along. The trouble is, I have not seen one. > Instead of complaining about the lack of support and how much you are going > to miss SmartCAM, why don't you form a for real users group, or some other > type of organization, and go to SDRC and say, "Look folks, we like what > SmartCAM could do. We understand your decision to kill SmartCAM, but we > would like to work with you in trying to implement some of the SmartCAM > features into your new product, if possible." And you know what, with SDRC > being reasonable most of the time, they probably would be receptive to that > idea. OK, so now this place is not a real users group. Since when do we need your permission? > At least they would be more receptive to that than everyone throwing rocks > at their windows, and telling them how arrogant you think they are. Your > recent attacks and attitudes are similar to the NRA who doesn't have a clue > as to how to win friends and influence enemies. Apparently you are either a newcomer or among the clueless of this planet. Many of us here have nicely requested two years ago that SDRC drop Smartcam and force us into Artisan before Artisan was ready to do what they claimed it would do. Have you ever had the chance to take a good look at Artisan 3? It's a good solid modeler, which Smartcam never was. But then Smartcam was never intended to be a modeler. But ask it to drill a series of holes or mill a pocket and you might as well ask NASA to send a woman to Pluto and back tomorrow. It had trouble doing any type of machining efficiently. At the last IMTS in Chicago SDRC gave me the impression that they had no interest in any customers except the big ones like Ford. Perhaps now you will understand why the users here think of SDRC in much the same way that the intelligent people of this country think of President Clinton and Billy too. > Or maybe better yet, if there is an entrepreneur among you, why don't you > put together a group of investors and buy the code from SDRC? Then you can > do any damn thing you want with it. > > The bottom line is - SmartCAM truly is dead. Get a life and move on. So please explain why you are here. Apparently you have not come here to learn anything or contribute. I was letting fellow users know what they are in for if they go with one possible cam package. Where I come from it's called being a good neighbor. I am not asking anybody to agree with me 100%, or even 10% because I am not some messed up liberal that needs everybody to agree on the same thing no matter what. I bet that most of the Smartcam users here will never agree on a method of how to do something. That is why somebody with a legitimate question gets several different responses. > If > you want to stay in the Mom and Pop shop mode where hobby cam products are > the only ones you can afford, then go buy a new one, learn how to use it > and shut up. You would be suprised what you can do if you just try. As long as I have you here, please explain to me why all the big companies always farm out the really difficult tasks to those hobby shops with the toy cam packages. I and everybody else I work with and for would sure like to know. So would the employees of the other several thousand job shops in the country. Jeff Guse > Larry M. Hoke > > ====================================================================== > To find out more about this mailing list including how to unsubscribe, > send the message "info mfg-smartcam" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ====================================================================== ====================================================================== To find out more about this mailing list including how to unsubscribe, send the message "info mfg-smartcam" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ======================================================================
