EDGECAM Reviews

Summary: Easy to use, Can manage complex part. WAVEFORM does improved our efficiency. Probing, Milling, virtual simulation, just perfect. We mainly use for production but can manage mould tools as well. The Wire EDM just simple, but I don't think we need more.

Positive: To get 5-6 parts programmed daily. It helps a lot on quoting using my PCIs for a quick toolpaths.
The thing called WORKFLOW interface are really good remind me working on the machine, load the model, set up the environment stock fixture machine, than create features for holes, toolpath and Generate NC code is dead simple.

Negative: Complex 5 axis roughing in 2023.1 not that good but 2024.1 should improve based on the support, so I am waiting to see that.

Summary: The initial cost of ‘perpetual ownership’ plus the post processors was to be written off against years of generating income. However, the truth was quite different. Every time I attempted to use Edgecam in anger, it would not produce the expected results.

In such cases, support would play one of 2 tunes: “That’s another module you need to pay for” or “We’ll escalate that to development as a bug”.

When they dropped “Part Modeler” (along with all its flaws) in the 2020-R2 release, to replace it with “Designer”, I paid to go on the 3 day course.

I was underwhelmed. I felt it was so similar to Fusion 360 that I decided to go that way instead.

Since going down the Fusion 360 route, I have not looked back!

Fusion 360 now even encompasses “Eagle PCB”, so I can now go from schematic, to surface mount components & PCB layout, through to enclosure and all the way to the G-Code posts directly dropped into our machines. Happy days at long last :)

In closing: After investing so much time and spending all that money on Edgecam, have I seen it repay itself?

A resounding: NO!

I have licked my Edgecam wounds with Fusion 360, and now the future is looking far, far better :-D

P.S. Autodesk Fusion 360 appears to comply to the Siemens Parasolid standards: meaning that you can change the first thing you created, and it flows all the way to the end! Something that Edgecam couldn't do!

Positive: Marie Sparshatt Ltd, as a small sub-contract machine shop, in 2013 we set out to review various CAD/CAM packages. After about 6 months, we finally decided upon Edgecam, as it appeared to be the one that would suit all our Mazak machines and our budget.

I loved “Part Modeler” (spelt that way), as it enabled me to dream up parts in my mind and create solid parts. I adapted to it quickly, although it had some very strange quirks, which over time I got used to working around.

Even though the company went through a few changes from Vero through Planit to Hexagon, the support team were great and fairly responsive. I guess that’s what you’re paying for :!

Negative: The whole Edgecam CAD/CAM experience appeared to be straddling 3 separate applications: ‘Part Modeler’, ‘Edgecam’ & the tool-path checker ‘Simulator’. The linking between the 3 proved to be fairly tenuous.

All post processors had to be ‘customised’ especially for your machine, incurring extra expense. To my surprise there were no ‘off the shelf’ solutions, or ones that could be tweaked. This involved filling out an extensive report on each machine’s G-Code capabilities for their post creators to do the magic :o

However, in order to modify the posts that we had already paid for, I had to be granted special licence to use their “Code Wizard”.

In addition to these hurdles, their ‘code protection’ was on another level. I chose the ‘network licence’ over the ‘dongle’ option as I needed to be able to run the software from wherever I was working. The ‘Licence Manager’, to grant such privileges, was so finicky and required VPNs along with my customised batch scripts and mapped drives to achieve remote working.

On top of this, the tool management was based in Microsoft SQL Server, which added another layer of complication when sharing and performing off-line backups. Is this paranoia at its best or just bad planning? I guess that’s what you get when you purchase these fragmented software companies and attempt to ‘shoe horn’ them into a “one solution”.