[The Engine Guy]

I seem to be one of the few who didn't care much for Predator.

The nice thing with using the built in simulation is that you can still have many different machines, and the post is not generated until after you have selected the machine you want to cut it on (bringing up the appropriate post processor automatically). You can change between virtual machines in seconds without having to post out the G-code first. I find this to be a very important distinction because if you post out the G-code, and it's not working well, it's very easy to end up accidentally using a program that you had already decided didn't work right by accident, simply because it exists and you must delete it or update it before you move on in your workflow. If the G-code has not been generated but can be brought right into simulation, there is no opportunity to accidentally use the bad G-code because it does not yet exist.

The G code is not brought into the Moduleworks simulation within BobCAD, that runs from the Move List produced, not the G code, it is pretty accurate but not 100%.
What runs OK in the simulation may not be the same in the G code, all depends on how well the PP being used has been setup.

With the built in Bobcad Standard or Pro simulation system, the last step should be saving the G-code, done only after you have verified that it simulates 100% correctly. This reduces the opportunity to mishandle G-code files that may or may not be kosher for the machine to produce the desired result. In my opinion, having this workflow greatly reduces the option for human error in file handling, which is no small probability for those like me who are probably using half a dozen or more different jump drives to transport the files from their desktop to their CNC machine. Once a file has passed the simulation step, then (and only then) I save it as G-code directly to a jump drive. The only place I save G-code to anymore is the jump drive, and every month or so, I wipe the jump drives clean of all G-code files.

Using Predator Backplot doesn`t interfere in any way with your workflow, it only comes into play right at the very end as a final confirmation of the G code, after you have done your simulation and then generated the code that`s where Predator comes into it`s own, simply right click and choose "Edit CNC" and that will launch Predator directly from BobCAD in just the same way that choosing the "Simulation" button in BobCAD launches the Moduleworks simulation, no difference

I no longer save G-code files in an archive at all. Let's say that during the year after the initial run of a part from G-code I make changes to the machine, or I buy a second new machine, the only way to know for sure that it will work properly a year later is to re-post it after re-simulating it from the .BBCD file. Any update I make to the machine or post processor would show any problems that there may be, and they would also adjust the G-code output to reflect those changes so the file works correctly. Since the .BBCD file already has the toolpath strategies ready to go, it only takes a few moments to re-verify that the toolpath simulates correctly and post it to G-code. I know that sometimes .BBCD files don't open 100% properly in future versions of Bobcad, but I plan to just keep any older version on hand and keep the post processor and simulation up to date. So far, it seems that both of those are portable, meaning that I can update on version and then put the same machine/post processor files into the other versions, so you really only have to do it once to cover the same update to several versions.

All in all, I really find the Bobcad/Module Works simulator is much more desirable for my own workflow, where Predator never really seemed to fit in well at all. Obviously, there are many who seem to really like it here in the forums, and I imagine they must have a workflow that accommodates it better.

I think everyone does pretty much as you do above, just the added final checking of the actual G code in Predator which can`t currently be done in the Simulator, I do hope that Burr is right in thinking that a proper backplot facility may be added to the software, hopefully sooner rather than later as it is a must as far as I`m concerned

Regards
Rob
:rainfro: :rainfro: :rainfro: