Showerthought: Do we actually save time with CAM software or does it just shift the work around?

I was reading through a thread on Practical Machinist last night and someone dropped a stat that surprised me. They said a guy spent 3 hours programming a simple part in CAM that he could've hand coded in 45 minutes. But then the CAM program ran perfectly the first time, while the hand code needed 2 test runs to debug. So which side wins? Is it better to invest time upfront in CAM for that guaranteed first-run success, or are we overcomplicating simple jobs? Curious how you all decide when to fire up the software versus just typing it out.

2 comments

2 Comments

angela_carter1d ago

Three hours of CAM for a simple part that could be hand coded in 45 minutes? That's a waste of a morning right there. CAM software just moves the work from the machine to the computer desk, but it doesn't make it go away. You still have to double check tool paths, fix clearance issues, and fight with post processors that never spit out exactly what you want. For anything with less than five tools and basic geometry, I'll write G-code by hand every time and be done before the CAM guy finishes his first cup of coffee. The "first run perfect" thing is a myth anyway, I still see CAM programs that crash into vises or rapid into clamps because the simulator didn't catch everything.

richard_sanchez431d ago

Is it really that big of a deal though? I mean, yeah, CAM can be a pain sometimes, but three hours versus 45 minutes is a stretch unless you're doing something super simple like a single contour. I've seen guys spend two hours hand coding a part, then another hour debugging a typo that crashes the machine. That's not really faster, just different.