The following is re-post found on the CAMWorks web site.
When I decided to write this blog, one guideline I made for
myself is that the content would stay focused on technical trends and
information and not become a forum for marketing and sales. While the
tone of this topic may sound like a sales promotion, it is not intended
to be. As many of you may be aware, Geometric recently released a new
full machine tool simulation solution for CAMWorks. This new simulation
solution is the result of several years of strategizing, planning and
developing.
What was wrong with the current simulation product that so much time
and effort was spent to create an entirely new product? The simple
answer is that the new simulator offering has the ability to read and
interpret G-code to drive the simulated machine motion. This feature is
not new to machine simulation. So, what makes Geometric’s new G-code
simulator different and why is it important?
While the new CAMWorks machine simulator and other leading standalone
simulator products are alike in that they process G-code, integrated
machine simulator products offered by pretty much all CAM products read
and process a neutral form of CL data. This is a significant
difference. For anyone who has written or edited G-code manually you
know it is not only critical to have the correct X,Y,Z and rotary axis
values correct but also the proper use and format of G and M codes.
While the CL data that is generated from CAM systems do output accurate
axis values, they do not provide CL statements for all G-codes available
to a machine tool control. This difference could prove disastrous on
the shop floor if the integrated simulator is missing machine motion
commands that are present in the G-code run on the machine tool. In
cases like this, the integrated simulator may show a safe and valid
machine run but when the actual G-code is run on the machine, these
missing codes could result in a costly collision. A simple example may
be that post logic is applied that outputs a parts catcher sequence
after some predetermined conditions in the post processor. When the
G-code is read by the actual machine the parts catcher would activate
but the CL data that is read by the CL machine simulator would not have
enough information to emulate the parts catcher.
Similar example would be the ability of true G-code simulation to
address sub-programs that will not be available in CL data simulation.
If an uncommon CNC programming sequence occurs and the post processor
logic has not been previously tested or if the G-code is manually
modified for some reason, a simulator that processes G-code could help
catch a mistake before it reaches the machine tool. For machine
simulators that take CL data as input, a potential problem may not be
detected.
Does this mean that CL based simulators should not be used? My
opinion is that there are valid situations for their use. First, if the
machine environment is not overly complex, CL based simulation does
deliver a consistently reliable result. Second, depending on how the CL
based simulator is integrated into the CAM system, the setup and
simulation time may be faster than G-code based simulators. Third, the
cost of the CL based simulator is typically much less than G-code based
simulators.
In the last couple releases of CAMWorks, Geometric has added
significant new features and abilities to provide CNC programing for
complex multifunction machine tools that are becoming more and more
common in manufacturing. The G-code programs that drive these machines
can be very complex and catching these errors on a G-code based
simulator becomes increasingly valuable to answering the big question
“Will the G-code program run safely and efficiently on the machine tool
it was written for”? What sets the new CAMWorks G-code simulator apart
from other simulators is that it provides the option of processing
either G-code or CL data with the ease and simplicity of starting a
simulation session offered by being integrated with CAMWorks. When you
consider that the CAMWorks G-code version is about half the cost of
standalone G-code simulation products, the value is difficult to ignore.