Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

m74uk · 2014-03-16 20:43:26

Vericut Reviewer......a really good idea but not a Player replacement

We currently use Vericut Player on our PC's in our shopfloor where every machine tool has a PC where they can watch a recorded .img file to help assist setups.

As Vericut releases updates, generally the PC's (which launch from a remote Server) has no issues playing any of the files

This is where Reviewer falls down.

If I record a Reviewer file, apparently its version locked so any subsequent updates to Vericut, legacy Reviewer files cannot be played

eg
Dec 2013 I record a Reviewer file on V7.2 to view on shopfloor PC (Server runs V7.2)

March 2014, Using Vericut V7.3, Reviewer files will not launch on shopfloor PC's as Reviewer file was recorded on an newer version

Here's the dilemma, if I upgrade the Server all new files will run but legacy files wont
If I donâ€™t update server, all legacy files work but new files will not.

Question,

Have I totally misunderstood or is Reviewer fundamentally flawed?

TomB · 2014-03-17 15:53:17

VERICUT reviewer canâ€™t really be compared to the player. They are different animals. The PLAYER was designed as a static playback feature to show a movie of the simulation session. Because it is a movie (either in our .img or .avi format) It can only show flat plane, screen capture visuals without any other information. The REVIEWER is a copy of the cut database and is 3 dimensional. These models can be measured, queried for cutting information and display specific cutter path visuals. Since weâ€™re peeking directly into the database, the file is version specific at this time.

I typically recommend that when saving reviewer files, do so with some kind of version number in the filename so you know which version player is required. this allows you to play back the legacy files.

Example: My-file_V72.vcreview.

Last edited by TomB (2014-03-17 18:39:16)

Verifun · 2014-03-18 13:36:05

Well, you can't make the Corvette goes faster without changing its engine... This is the principle of almost every engineering software out there... They're backwards compatible but not the other way around...

That being said, this is how I overcome this issue:

I installed VERICUT Reviewer in our engineering server and mapped the install path as a network drive in the shop floor PCs.

When they execute reviewer, they are actually executing it from a network path. This way, everytime I upgrade VERICUT in this server the shop PCs also run the same version version MFG engineers are using.

JM2C

Last edited by Verifun (2014-03-18 13:37:37)

marting · 2014-03-19 14:33:55

Daniel,

I understand what you did and it makes a lot of sense. The problem with reviewer files is the backwards compatibility. If you create a reviewer file with V7.2. You vcan not open it with reviewer V7.3. It means that you have to have access to multiple versions of the reviewer depending on the version it was created for. To me, this does not make sense at all. In 10 years, how many versions of the reviewer will we need to have?

Verifun · 2014-03-20 11:51:21

marting wrote:

Daniel,
I understand what you did and it makes a lot of sense. The problem with reviewer files is the backwards compatibility. If you create a reviewer file with V7.2. You vcan not open it with reviewer V7.3. It means that you have to have access to multiple versions of the reviewer depending on the version it was created for. To me, this does not make sense at all. In 10 years, how many versions of the reviewer will we need to have?

Hi Martin,

I never noticed this version specific issue, probably because I never heard from operators about issues with opening files. But usually they don't complain when something is non-vital to them, so I'll patrol the shop today testing what you said. It's likely it's happening here too.

I think I misunderstood you in the 1st post. Sorry for that.

If this is really what's going on, then I agree CGTech must find a solution for this as the current way is neither acceptable nor sustainable. If they want to traction reviewer usage, they need to make it work with previous versions.

Otherwise is just a source of trouble instead of the tool it is supposed to be.

m74uk · 2014-03-23 13:02:57

I installed VERICUT Reviewer in our engineering server and mapped the install path as a network drive in the shop floor PCs.

That's the way I'm setup

marting wrote:

Daniel,
I understand what you did and it makes a lot of sense. The problem with reviewer files is the backwards compatibility. If you create a reviewer file with V7.2. You vcan not open it with reviewer V7.3. It means that you have to have access to multiple versions of the reviewer depending on the version it was created for. To me, this does not make sense at all. In 10 years, how many versions of the reviewer will we need to have?

Thank Martin, that's exactly my point.

Whilst I agree with TomB with respect it being a different animal, I considered it to be a natural evolution to PLAYER.
It's what my shopfloor have been asking for, (to be able to interact and view the NC Code during simulation).

That being said, I can't recommend deployment of REVIEWER in its current state and will continue to use PLAYER now that they've fixed the issue of launching from the stand alone app error introduced in V7.2

Verifun · 2014-03-27 14:35:29

I was able to reproduce the issue with several 7.2 files not opening in 7.3.

I uploaded one of them to CGTech yesterday.

Thanks for reporting this! I agree with with m74uk that Reviewer is not a robust shop tool without being able to open files from previous versions. There's no way we have to install multiple copies of Reviewer and place shortcuts for them in shop PCs. Also, no way I'm going to ask a CNC operator with little familiarity with computers to browse files in the network and figure out which version he must use to open it, even with the naming convention mentioning version number. It's just to complex for those who maintain it and for those who use it. It's a handicapped tool as of now IMHO. Just to say "We have it too".

Imagine now you opening this files in an IPad? Or to send them to a sub-contractor or an OEM that don't give a damn which SW you are using?

Last edited by Verifun (2014-03-28 15:35:35)

Verifun · 2014-03-27 22:35:32

I wonder how NCSimul Player handles this... they started with Player Technology years before CGTech...

Edit:

Just because I started to dig up for it I found it in less than a minute:

Normally this is the kind of technical detail you only find out when trying to use it. Perhaps they know about CGTech REVIEWER's current limitation and the marketing dudes highlighted it on purpose?

Source: http://www.springplm.com/contenu.php?ID=496

NCSimul Player

I think CGTech rushed reviewer to compete with NCSimul. And now I have a red face because I thought that a newer version could open previous files.

I'm going to start the dismantling of my setup next week.

Last edited by Verifun (2014-03-28 15:37:33)

vhubbard · 2014-04-24 19:00:07

I always thought a review file should work like a self extracting zip file. Carry enough of the code to make the visual work without needing the parent software. That way it could be version independent.

marting · 2014-06-06 17:37:52

Good news everybody

I did have CgTech raise SCR # 11586 -- Reviewer files to be upward compatible about this issue a while back.

I received notice from my tech support guy that 7.3.1 reviewer files will be read with the next release of the reviewer.

VERICUT Users' Forum

#1 2014-03-16 20:43:26

Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#2 2014-03-17 15:53:17

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#3 2014-03-18 13:36:05

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#4 2014-03-19 14:33:55

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#5 2014-03-20 11:51:21

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#6 2014-03-23 13:02:57

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#7 2014-03-27 14:35:29

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#8 2014-03-27 22:35:32

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#9 2014-04-24 19:00:07

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

#10 2014-06-06 17:37:52

Re: Vericut Reviewer....... A poor mans Player

Board footer