CIMCO Machine Simulation can support offline NC-code review, but the evidence from 2020–2021 describes two different capabilities: graphical backplot and full machine simulation. Select the correct mode first, then prove that the configured control, cycles, tools, offsets, and machine movements match the real process before relying on collision results.
Distinguish Backplot from Machine Simulation
| Capability | Evidence-supported purpose | Engineering implication |
|---|---|---|
| Graphical NC-code backplot | Displays programmed paths, including paths associated with tilting movements. | Use it to inspect toolpath geometry; do not treat path display alone as proof of machine-clearance validation. |
| Full machine simulation | Represents machine movements and can log reported malfunctions or collisions for review at the relevant NC block. | Use it only after configuring a machine and control model that represents the target equipment. |
The machine-simulation function was described as an add-on to the CIMCO NC-Editor. The editor connection allows an engineer to inspect an individual NC block and correct the program at the reported location.
Confirm the Required Inputs and Integration Path
The evidence identifies STL import for the workpiece, fixture, stock, tools, and related geometry. A useful simulation therefore depends on more than the NC file: the virtual setup must include the collision bodies, tool assemblies, work coordinate definitions, and machine configuration needed to reproduce the intended operation.
The reported deployment paths were integration with a CAD/CAM system or stand-alone use near the machine. Mastercam and SolidCAM users were also described as having an add-on that transfers the posted NC program and associated tools, holders, workpiece, fixture, stock, and defined work offsets into the simulation. Availability and compatibility must be confirmed for the installed software release.
Resolve Capability Conflicts Before Selection
The evidence contains conflicting 2020–2021 claims. One account states that drilling, deep-hole drilling, tapping, and probing cycles can be simulated, together with work-offset shifts and block repetitions. Another states that only standard cycles were supported and specifically reports no probing cycles. Treat cycle support as configuration-dependent or unresolved until demonstrated with the exact control implementation.
| Feature | Evidence status | Required decision |
|---|---|---|
| Standard machining cycles | Reported as supported. | Run each cycle used by the production program. |
| Custom or modified cycles | Reported as unsupported. | Do not approve the workflow without an exact-cycle test. |
| Probing cycles | Conflicting claims. | Require a vendor demonstration using the target syntax and machine model. |
| Complex tools and holders | Reported limitations include form, stepped, and 3D tools and multiple correction switches. | Confirm that every collision envelope can be represented. |
| Spindle positioning | Reported as unsupported. | Test any operation dependent on spindle orientation. |
| Material removal | Reported as unsupported. | Do not assume collision checking proves stock-removal accuracy. |
| Multichannel execution | Reported as unsupported. | Exclude multichannel programs unless the installed release demonstrates them. |
| Feed optimization | Reported as unavailable. | Keep simulation validation separate from feed-rate optimization. |
Check Control and Machine Compatibility
A historical supplier claim lists Heidenhain TNC 426–640, Siemens 840D, Fanuc, and DIN/ISO 66025 among supported control formats. The same evidence also warns that relatively few controls had been implemented at that time. A control-family label is therefore insufficient: verify the exact machine kinematics, NC dialect, cycle definitions, postprocessor output, and option-dependent behavior.
For an older FP3, the evidence does not identify the installed control or prove that an FP3 machine model exists. Record the exact control and machine configuration, then require a representative NC program to execute without unsupported-command substitutions.
Run and Verify the Offline Review
- Identify whether the requirement is toolpath backplot or full machine simulation.
- Confirm the exact target control, NC dialect, machine kinematics, and cycle set against the installed CIMCO release.
- Load the posted NC program and the available STL geometry for the workpiece, stock, fixture, tools, and holders. Enter the same work offsets used by the planned setup.
- Execute the complete program, including block repetitions, offset changes, cycles, and table or milling-head swivel movements.
- Open every logged malfunction or collision and inspect the corresponding NC block in the editor.
- Correct the program or virtual setup, rerun the simulation, and retain unresolved unsupported features as explicit commissioning risks.
Verification is complete only when the simulation processes every required command, the virtual setup matches the intended setup, all logged events have been reviewed, and no required behavior depends on an unverified feature. Simulation can reduce machine prove-out effort, but this evidence does not establish that it replaces controlled commissioning at the machine.
FAQ
Is CIMCO backplot the same as full machine simulation?
No. Backplot displays NC paths, while full machine simulation represents machine movements and can associate reported collisions or malfunctions with individual NC blocks.
Can CIMCO Machine Simulation run custom NC cycles?
The 2020–2021 evidence reports support for standard cycles but reports custom or modified cycles as unsupported. Test every required cycle with the exact control configuration before approving the workflow.
What must be verified before simulating an older FP3?
Verify the installed control, NC dialect, machine kinematics, cycle definitions, postprocessor output, work offsets, and available machine model. The evidence does not confirm FP3 compatibility.
