The first operational process of using a CNC machining center for workpiece processing is CNC programming. What software is good for automatic programming of CNC machining centers? This is a choice that many technicians face, but in fact, the problem is very simple. The main choice is based on your purpose, commonly used include UG, MATER CAM, PRO/E, CAXA, etc.
1. When you do simple mechanical processing, use MasterCAM, which milling two-dimensional parts and simple surface functions are quite powerful. If processing complex parts, such as impellers, it is recommended to use PowerMILL. It has low efficiency in simple processing, and has stronger processing capabilities, efficiency, and ease of learning compared to MasterCAM.
nine hundred
2. If it is a processing mold, common plastic molds are designed using UG. In order to prevent errors in exporting and importing models, UG also has milling function, which is not bad. Therefore, the tool path can be directly generated in UG, and a module can be added to UG, which can improve the simulation level. The prices of genuine software are different. MasterCAM is cheap, PowerMILL is moderate, and UG is expensive.
&Nbsp;
3. Next, let's talk about CAXA. CAXA is commonly referred to as domestically produced by most users. If you have been working on mechanical design for a long time and have been exposed to powerful software, you will find the functional characteristics of CAXA. Its simple shape and function cannot meet the needs of mold design, and it can only produce some conventional parts. CAXA's direct competitor is MasterCAM. Apart from not requiring localization and having relatively simple tool parameters, CAXA has no advantages, such as poor connection between modeling and simulation modules, inability to check interference between machine tools and fixtures, and significantly slower tool path calculations compared to MasterCAM. Of course, not all CAXAs are bad. The solid design module in the CAXA series (which can make parts, assemble, simulate, and simulate quite poorly) is still somewhat innovative, such as the obvious advantage of the three-dimensional ball thinking.