Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:

  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Onshape Needs Its Own CAM

jon_30jon_30 Member Posts: 37
edited May 2015 in General
Integrated CAM within SolidWorks has never lived up to the hype because both CAD and CAM really need to share the same database. Using a CAD systems API hasn't worked out very well and I no longer believe it's an effective strategy for true, fully integrated, CADCAM. I'm not the only one who has this belief. This CADCAM architect, who was responsible for a good deal of think3, shares my belief. For those not aware think3 had/has much better surfacing tools than either SolidWorks or Autodesk Inventor:

http://www.openmind-tech.com/en/products/hypercad-s-cad-software/inside-hypercad-s.html

Sadly, Onshape has the same mentality for 3rd party applications that SolidWorks had when it was founded.

Open Mind is building their own CAD despite running inside of both SolidWorks and Autodesk Inventor. Other CAM companies that I speak with are starting to realize they need their own CAD and are doing something about it.

Jon Banquer
CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn




Comments

  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 242 PRO
    @Jon Banquer 
    Why do you feel so strongly that OnShape CAD should integrate a CAM package?  

    Here, look at this link from the OnShape website: https://www.onshape.com/cad-blog/onshapes-core-values-our-statement-of-principles

    Their core values and mission statement say nothing to indicate the focus is on CAM.  OnShape is a CAD package.  

  • jon_30jon_30 Member Posts: 37
    edited May 2015
    You can't really separate CAD from CAM no matter how much you try. Without powerful CAD you lose CAM program creation efficiency.

    "Their core values and mission statement say nothing to indicate the focus is on CAM."

    Then it's time to adopt better and more complete core values as well as gain a better understanding of the tools CADCAM programmers really need.

    Jon Banquer
    CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn


     




  • colemancoleman OS Professional Posts: 242 PRO
    You can't really separate CAD from CAM no matter how much you try. Without powerful CAD you lose CAM program creation efficiency.

    "Their core values and mission statement say nothing to indicate the focus is on CAM."

    Then it's time to adopt better and more complete core values as well as gain a better understanding of the tools CADCAM programmers really need.

    Jon Banquer
    CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn


     




    1) You can separate CAD from CAM.  I am a CAM programmer and I program parts everyday without a solid model created in a CAM software.

    2) There are many CAD users who have NO use for CAM whatsoever.  CAD applications extend beyond parts that will be fabricated on a CNC machine.  


    3) I think Onshape is on the right track and there is a need for the product they are creating.  

    4) Onshape is spot-on by utilizing technology partners.  Look at apple and the app store.  There is power in community and by allowing technology partners to develop applications that work with the core platform growth is exponential.  

    Imagine the possibilities if there were thousands of apps that link with onshape in the future.  
  • jon_30jon_30 Member Posts: 37
    edited May 2015
    " You can separate CAD from CAM.  I am a CAM programmer and I program parts everyday without a solid model created in a CAM software."

    Just about everything I create CAM part programs for has a solid model. I've programmed parts for the last 25 years. It's very rare that I don't get a solid model except for older Solar Turbine parts.

    When you separate CAD from CAM you lose efficiency. This is especially true on complex parts. That's not my opinion, that's fact. This is one reason why so many serious, state of the art, modern CNC machine shops end up with Siemens NX, Open Mind hyperMILL / hyperCAD-S, Delcam PowerSHAPE / PowerMILL, Tebis, Cimatron, Visi-CADCAM, etc.

    Production CADCAM like Edgecam has had their own Parasolid based Part Modeler for many years. Even their own stand-alone part modeler isn't good enough for best efficiency so Edgecam went ahead and created CAD that works inside of Workflow called Edgecam Workflow Solids (EWS). It's still primitive but EWS gets better every release.

    Onshape isn't spot on for many users. Many people acknowledge that Onshape is badly lacking in lots of areas:

    http://www.worldcadaccess.com/blog/2015/03/seven-flaws-in-onshape.html

    Maybe it's better to be objective about Onshape rather than being a fanboi?

    Jon Banquer
    CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn







  • jon_30jon_30 Member Posts: 37
    edited May 2015
    Why does my response now show up as buried? Is it because we have 5 Onshape fanboi's who can't deal with reality and voted my comment down? Pathetic.

    Jon Banquer
    CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn





  • mcconnell113mcconnell113 Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    As a CAM user I agree that it would be nice to see a CAM built from the ground up that was made for use with OnShape
    John McConnell - Let's change things.
    Saplingstore.com
  • jon_30jon_30 Member Posts: 37
    edited May 2015
    By now it should be clear to anyone who makes good use of this board that you won't see Mastercam running inside of Onshape anytime soon. That leaves SolidCAM as the only Onshape CAM partner I know of. When SolidCAM For Onshape becomes available it should be clear to a lot more CADCAM programmers why Onshape should build their own CAM from the ground up.


    Jon Banquer
    CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn


  • SummerSummer Member Posts: 1
    As a current Fusion 360 user frustrated with much of their idiocracy I have been seriously eyeing Onshape but it looks like I might be trading one set of problems for another. The responses here toward an integrated cam solution make me sad and definitely make me less interested in considering Onshape. 
    With all the shortcoming of Fusion 360 having integrated CAM still makes it a much better option for me. 
    In another thread I see many people suggesting cheap CAM options. Most mesh based. I can tell you that after using a half decent CAM package and F360 might be half decent at best the thought of going back to anything less is just not going to happen. 
    I was grandfathered in to the ultimate subscription for the $300 a year price so I can't really afford to drop that subscription but if Onshape proved to be better I might almost consider it. Even if I didn't have this cheap subscription or if I decided to get another CAD program I still don't think I would be able to justify spending $1200 a year on Onshape if it didn't have capable integrated CAM. 
  • david_smith431david_smith431 Member Posts: 2 PRO
    edited September 2015
    SolidCAM now have a page with beta user sign up (broken form).
    http://www.solidcam.com/en-us/solutions/cad-integration/onshape/
    Any sign of a road map?
Sign In or Register to comment.