FADAC is beginning to get serious about their UMC10 with a much better tool changer than the umbrella type. The major question I have is how much will it add to the price?

See my comments and FADAC's response he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2wWpbOz7jA

Note the request by another commenter for a 3D surfacing video.

I'm still waiting for Mark Wieber, or any of his clique of idiots, to discuss machining parts that need surfacing. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that a liar like Mark Wieber, or any member of his clique of idiots, has ever created surfacing toolpath. I have also seen no evidence that these losers can machining anything other than simple prismatic parts.

There is a lot more to CNC machining than just doing prismatic parts and converting an old knee mills to Linux CNC.

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

Note the request by another commenter for a 3D surfacing video.

I'm still waiting for Mark Wieber, or any of his clique of idiots, to
discuss machining parts that need surfacing. I've seen no evidence
whatsoever that a liar like Mark Wieber, or any member of his clique
of idiots, has ever created surfacing toolpath. I have also seen no
evidence that these losers can machining anything other than simple
prismatic parts.

There is a lot more to CNC machining than just doing prismatic parts
and converting an old knee mills to Linux CNC.



Show us an example of what you call "3D surfacing".

Even the low-priced UK CamBam (primarily targeted to hobbiests) can do 3D
surfaces, roughing to approximate shape with flat end mills, and then, if
you have the time, pretty good surfacing at small stepovers and small
depth increments, using ball and bull-nosed cutters.

So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say most CAMs can't do it, unless
I don't understand what sort of 'surfacing' you're referring to.

Lloyd

On Monday, December 16, 2013 7:17:22 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:



Note the request by another commenter for a 3D surfacing video.



I'm still waiting for Mark Wieber, or any of his clique of idiots, to

discuss machining parts that need surfacing. I've seen no evidence

whatsoever that a liar like Mark Wieber, or any member of his clique

of idiots, has ever created surfacing toolpath. I have also seen no

evidence that these losers can machining anything other than simple

prismatic parts.



There is a lot more to CNC machining than just doing prismatic parts

and converting an old knee mills to Linux CNC.







Show us an example of what you call "3D surfacing".



Even the low-priced UK CamBam (primarily targeted to hobbiests) can do 3D

surfaces, roughing to approximate shape with flat end mills, and then, if

you have the time, pretty good surfacing at small stepovers and small

depth increments, using ball and bull-nosed cutters.



So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say most CAMs can't do it, unless

I don't understand what sort of 'surfacing' you're referring to.



Lloyd

I already posted examples and the thread was basically ignored. I see no reason to do it again. It's pretty clear to me that serious home shop CNC machining isn't an interest in this group at this point.

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:


I already posted examples and the thread was basically ignored. I see
no reason to do it again. It's pretty clear to me that serious home
shop CNC machining isn't an interest in this group at this point.

I follow the threads. At least on my news server, none of your examples
showed up.

I'm NOT challenging you, I'm trying to understand what you state cannot
be done with fairly ordinary CAM that can be done with what you
recommend.

As much as you post here, it seems it would be very little additional
trouble to re-post for those who missed your point.

You can stamp your liddle foot and pout, or you can follow up. Your
choice.


Lloyd

jon_banquer fired this volley in news:2c291939-
:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSO0p0ebwWE

Jon,
As played in that light, Delcam has features that look pretty handy and
advanced, like the comparison check 'model to as-cut'. It also seems to
have MORE strategies for milling 3D surfaces than simpler packages. The
UI appears to be pretty smooth (can't say how 'intuitive').

All that said, much simpler, lower-cost 2.5D CAMs have much of that
capability. Again, I'll refer to CamBam, as being the one I'm most
familiar with.

At $300 (including the price of a bundled 3D cut simulator), CamBam can
do almost all of what I saw DelCam do _in_that_demo_. It has region-fill
and waterline 3D methods, just as those shown in the DelCam vid. It has
the ability to see the finished cut in 3D, and freely rotate it. It can
use different roughing and finishing strategies.

It is NOT 'feature based', but relies on the whole 3D volume for its cues
about how to approach surfaces and cut strategies.

So: Although what I saw of DelCam makes it very attractive in terms of
capabilities, you're not entirely correct that there aren't lower-end
'hobby' softwares out there that can do good 3D surfacing.

I won't drag him into this discussion unless he wishes to join, but
there's a frequent CamBam user here on r.c.m. who uses it to design molds
for casting commercial fishbaits. He uses CamBam's 3D methods
extensively, and they really seem to turn out nicely... his molds AND his
finished baits are successful.

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

jon_banquer fired this volley in news:2c291939-
:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSO0p0ebwWE

Jon,
As played in that light, Delcam has features that look pretty handy and
advanced, like the comparison check 'model to as-cut'. It also seems to
have MORE strategies for milling 3D surfaces than simpler packages. The
UI appears to be pretty smooth (can't say how 'intuitive').

All that said, much simpler, lower-cost 2.5D CAMs have much of that
capability. Again, I'll refer to CamBam, as being the one I'm most
familiar with.

One things for sure, you aren't cutting arbitrary 3d shapes to
0.0001" accuracy.




At $300 (including the price of a bundled 3D cut simulator), CamBam can
do almost all of what I saw DelCam do _in_that_demo_. It has region-fill
and waterline 3D methods, just as those shown in the DelCam vid. It has
the ability to see the finished cut in 3D, and freely rotate it. It can
use different roughing and finishing strategies.

It is NOT 'feature based', but relies on the whole 3D volume for its cues
about how to approach surfaces and cut strategies.

So: Although what I saw of DelCam makes it very attractive in terms of
capabilities, you're not entirely correct that there aren't lower-end
'hobby' softwares out there that can do good 3D surfacing.

I won't drag him into this discussion unless he wishes to join, but
there's a frequent CamBam user here on r.c.m. who uses it to design molds
for casting commercial fishbaits. He uses CamBam's 3D methods
extensively, and they really seem to turn out nicely... his molds AND his
finished baits are successful.

I suspect the fish don't much care how precisely or
efficiently their bait is made.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jim fired this volley in
:

One things for sure, you aren't cutting arbitrary 3d shapes to
0.0001" accuracy.

I don't know that CamBam _can't_ do that. I know it has the mathematical
precision to manage it, but have never learnt enough of its 3D features
to know with what accuracy it mills 3D parts. But I have to ask this,
"Will FeatureCam do that?" If so, what's the cost per seat?

A lot of what the intelligent 2.5D user does is to plan parts for 3D
space and volume functionality, and 2.5D fits. That is, prismatic
surfaces are employed for fit-ups. And, of course, pretty much any CAM
can do that precision of work on prismatic surfaces.

Lloyd

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:02:05 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in news:2c291939-

:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSO0p0ebwWE



Jon,

As played in that light, Delcam has features that look pretty handy and

advanced, like the comparison check 'model to as-cut'. It also seems to

have MORE strategies for milling 3D surfaces than simpler packages. The

UI appears to be pretty smooth (can't say how 'intuitive').



All that said, much simpler, lower-cost 2.5D CAMs have much of that

capability. Again, I'll refer to CamBam, as being the one I'm most

familiar with.



At $300 (including the price of a bundled 3D cut simulator), CamBam can

do almost all of what I saw DelCam do _in_that_demo_. It has region-fill

and waterline 3D methods, just as those shown in the DelCam vid. It has

the ability to see the finished cut in 3D, and freely rotate it. It can

use different roughing and finishing strategies.



It is NOT 'feature based', but relies on the whole 3D volume for its cues

about how to approach surfaces and cut strategies.



So: Although what I saw of DelCam makes it very attractive in terms of

capabilities, you're not entirely correct that there aren't lower-end

'hobby' softwares out there that can do good 3D surfacing.



I won't drag him into this discussion unless he wishes to join, but

there's a frequent CamBam user here on r.c.m. who uses it to design molds

for casting commercial fishbaits. He uses CamBam's 3D methods

extensively, and they really seem to turn out nicely... his molds AND his

finished baits are successful.



LLoyd


You asked me for specifics and I gave you what you requested and more.

I ask you for specifics and I'm still waiting for the answer to what I asked you.

Here is exactly what I asked you:

"As it pertains to the system you use (CAMBAM) does it offer rest milling?"

If CamBam doesn't offer rest machining, it's not a CAM package I'd recommend anyone use for surfacing toolpath.

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

"As it pertains to the system you use (CAMBAM) does it offer rest
milling?"


I just forgot to respond to that. Why yes; it does have a feature like
that, although it wasn't name ReSt. It's called 'finishing MOps' in
CamBam.

Only stock that was not removed in prior Machining Operations is removed
in a finishing pass. The 'roughing' phase can be as fine as you wish,
with finishing removing as little as a fraction of a tenth, if you've got
the tools and machine to handle it.

It's not a dumb piece of hobby-soft, just low-priced, and missing many of
the 3D visualization tools that would be very nice to have.

Again... what's the price for a seat of FeatureCam? CamBam (alone, not
bundled with other software) is $149.

One thing I don't understand about the demo you showed us is why
FeatureCam would leave stock you wouldn't already know about? In CamBam,
if you specify a 'roughing' clearance, you can be certain there's exactly
that much material left for the Remaining Stock removal pass, except, of
course in corners that aren't over-cut, in which case the remaining stock
is a function of tool radius.

It almost appeared in the demo that one has to go FIND areas that aren't
finished in FeatureCam (using the model-check tool) ???

LLoyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

jim fired this volley in
:

One things for sure, you aren't cutting arbitrary 3d shapes to
0.0001" accuracy.

I don't know that CamBam _can't_ do that.

I know you don't know. But it definitely can't.


I know it has the mathematical
precision to manage it, but have never learnt enough of its 3D features
to know with what accuracy it mills 3D parts. But I have to ask this,
"Will FeatureCam do that?" If so, what's the cost per seat?

I don't think anyone has claimed FeatureCam can produce
arbitrary 3d shapes to .0001".

The Cam system is only one factor that contributes to
how accurately arbitrary 3d shapes can be reproduced by
the milling process. The average CNC milling machine can't hold
that level of accuracy in cutting arbitrary 3d shapes.


A lot of what the intelligent 2.5D user does is to plan parts for 3D
space and volume functionality, and 2.5D fits. That is, prismatic
surfaces are employed for fit-ups. And, of course, pretty much any CAM
can do that precision of work on prismatic surfaces.

From the documentation, CamBam only works with imported 3d meshes
or 2d curves. That alone tells you what sort of accuracy to
expect. So whatever you mean by prismatic, its not a concept
that CamBam recognizes.

Anyway, prismatic surfaces are not generally used for
mating surfaces. For example, irregular shaped parting surfaces.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:


One thing I don't understand about the demo you showed us is why
FeatureCam would leave stock you wouldn't already know about?

It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.

You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't
reach (because the radius is too large).
A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)
routine will find those areas and allow for cutting
them with a smaller radius tool.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jim fired this volley in news:ItydnZ_UiK-
:

So whatever you mean by prismatic, its not a concept
that CamBam recognizes.

Anyway, prismatic surfaces are not generally used for
mating surfaces. For example, irregular shaped parting surfaces.

Yes, Jim, I know the limitations of the machines and the tooling. I was
only commenting on the ability of the software to follow an arbitrary
curve. And if you weren't only trying to find fault with every comment,
you'd have to admit that an STL _can_ be as precise as you'd like to make
it. That introduces other overhead, but isn't by itself a factor that
limits accuracy. (time, yes; accuracy, no)

I already affirmed that 2.5D software can't (easily) do complex 3D mating
surfaces. Your comment was only a goad, to no purpose.

And yes, I know you don't know what 'prismatic' shapes are, or you'd
understand how real-world parts can be planned to part or mate on such
boundaries.

You howl like someone who's got 5-axis CNC at his disposal, but you
chitter like someone who's only citing what he's read, and never really
made any parts in a real shop, with 3-axis machinery.

Lloyd

jim fired this volley in
:

It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.

You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't
reach (because the radius is too large).
A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)
routine will find those areas and allow for cutting
them with a smaller radius tool.

It sounds to me like you don't read anything before you slander.

I mentioned the radius-caused remaining-stock issue. Did you not
understand the English parts, or was the Latin-based 'radius' a problem?

I also said CamBam is equipped to do what you blather about. It, too,
can sneak into those unfinished corners with smaller-radius tools WITHOUT
re-cutting air.

Lloyd

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:02:10 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jim fired this volley in

:



It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.



You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't

reach (because the radius is too large).

A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)

routine will find those areas and allow for cutting

them with a smaller radius tool.



It sounds to me like you don't read anything before you slander.



I mentioned the radius-caused remaining-stock issue. Did you not

understand the English parts, or was the Latin-based 'radius' a problem?



I also said CamBam is equipped to do what you blather about. It, too,

can sneak into those unfinished corners with smaller-radius tools WITHOUT

re-cutting air.



Lloyd


I order you both to find a way to get along... immediately.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:51:38 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:





One thing I don't understand about the demo you showed us is why

FeatureCam would leave stock you wouldn't already know about?



It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.



You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't

reach (because the radius is too large).

A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)

routine will find those areas and allow for cutting

them with a smaller radius tool.



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com


Pencil tracing refers most often to cutting the fillet radius's between surfaces. Here is an example:

http://www.solidcam.cz/typo3temp/pics/6f2861c3f8.jpg

Rest machining has a much broader definition and means anything that's left over from previous toolpaths.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:27:00 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:



"As it pertains to the system you use (CAMBAM) does it offer rest

milling?"





I just forgot to respond to that. Why yes; it does have a feature like

that, although it wasn't name ReSt. It's called 'finishing MOps' in

CamBam.



Only stock that was not removed in prior Machining Operations is removed

in a finishing pass. The 'roughing' phase can be as fine as you wish,

with finishing removing as little as a fraction of a tenth, if you've got

the tools and machine to handle it.



It's not a dumb piece of hobby-soft, just low-priced, and missing many of

the 3D visualization tools that would be very nice to have.



Again... what's the price for a seat of FeatureCam? CamBam (alone, not

bundled with other software) is $149.



One thing I don't understand about the demo you showed us is why

FeatureCam would leave stock you wouldn't already know about? In CamBam,

if you specify a 'roughing' clearance, you can be certain there's exactly

that much material left for the Remaining Stock removal pass, except, of

course in corners that aren't over-cut, in which case the remaining stock

is a function of tool radius.



It almost appeared in the demo that one has to go FIND areas that aren't

finished in FeatureCam (using the model-check tool) ???



LLoyd


"Again... what's the price for a seat of FeatureCam?"

Price is often negotiable but it starts at thousands of dollars and goes up from there depending on what you need to program... lathe, mill/turn, 5 axis, wire EDM, tombstone machining, etc. It's usually cheaper than the market leading crapware... Mastercam and it's far better in every possible way.

I think the person who develops CamBam should think about offering a more expensive program that does more. He's obviously a very talented guy with lots of good ideas. I'm very impressed with the program for what it does and I've said as much frequently.

Any other specifics? I love specifics! I live for specifics!

I love the kind of specifics that a pathological liar like Mark Wieber can't ever answer because Mark Wieber has no experience as a CNC machinist, has never worked as a CNC machinist in a machining job shop, has no idea how modern high tech CNC machining job shops operate, has no idea of the kinds of tools modern high tech machining job shops need and use, can't do solid modeling, can't do surface modeling, has no understanding of doing anything but prismatic parts, has no idea what kind of tools are needed to do short run production work, etc.

jon_banquer fired this volley in news:ec47b233-
:

So, I should assume when I see a FeatureCAM package offered for hundreds
of dollars, and touted to be the 'current version', that it's a pirate
copy; yes?

I think I remember Andy Payne (CB author) expressing a desire to write a
future 'professional' version of CamBam. I know he's in the midst of
trying to get back to his beloved Australia from the UK before he
launches on a big efforts like that.

Specifics -- well the thing most CamBam users enjoy the most is its
built-in 2D CAD facilities, with som limited (but still available) 3D
functionality. Drawing 3D within CamBam is mostly a 'trick', but it can
be done by creating 2D shapes and translating them about the axes.

I find that I can design more than 90% of my parts (strictly 'prismatic')
within CamBam as multiple orthogonal views, avoiding all the
importation/interpretation issues that accompany doing the CAD externally
with software that isn't specifically CAM-oriented.

It also has a wealth of integrity checks for shapes and milling paths,
although those are in the form of text messages from a debugging handler,
and not highlighted on the drawing.

It's also relatively bug-free. There are a few known bugs, and Andy
faithfully addresses them in each subsequent update, but there are still
a number of them outstanding, and updates have become less frequent
recently. Generally, though, the bugs are well-known.

CamBam presently has some limited lathe capabilities, with promises of
more complete support in the future... maybe even a lathe-only version.

The user forum is about the most helpful place you could imagine for
sorting out issues outside your normal experience with the package. I
don't know of anyone who's ever been shooed out by 'experts' for not
being of their level. That's unlike a lot of other sites occupied by
self-proclaimed gods who don't seem to be able to come down from Olympus
to help neophytes, except with cryptic references to things beginners
wouldn't know, anyway.

I'd say for most users, CamBam is not only their first CAM, it's probably
their first foray into CNC machining, so there are lots of beginners
there. It's targeted at the small hobby shop. It has utility that
extends past that market, and a price that makes it fun to experiment
with, even if it doesn't suit your needs.

Lloyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

jim fired this volley in news:ItydnZ_UiK-
:

So whatever you mean by prismatic, its not a concept
that CamBam recognizes.

Anyway, prismatic surfaces are not generally used for
mating surfaces. For example, irregular shaped parting surfaces.

Yes, Jim, I know the limitations of the machines and the tooling. I was
only commenting on the ability of the software to follow an arbitrary
curve. And if you weren't only trying to find fault with every comment,
you'd have to admit that an STL _can_ be as precise as you'd like to make
it. That introduces other overhead, but isn't by itself a factor that
limits accuracy. (time, yes; accuracy, no)


The mesh data can be made accurate, but it won't be tailored
to produce accurate toolpaths. And its still a huge
leap from having an ideal mesh model and making an
accurate part.


I already affirmed that 2.5D software can't (easily) do complex 3D mating
surfaces. Your comment was only a goad, to no purpose.

The use of the term 2.5D in CamBam refers to the type of
tool path (all surface cutting motion is restricted to 2d).

2.5d as used in CamBam does not refer to the shape or
complexity of the 3d surface. All it means is that the
software only supports 2-axis surfacing moves. CamBam may
be able to handle 2.5D geometry better than 3d geometry, but
I doubt it is much better at it because it has no way of telling
if the geometry is 2.5d


And yes, I know you don't know what 'prismatic' shapes are, or you'd
understand how real-world parts can be planned to part or mate on such
boundaries.

I said I don't know what you mean by prismatic because there
is no point in guessing. As far as i can tell, you believe
CamBam is accurate under some very limited conditions.


You howl like someone who's got 5-axis CNC at his disposal, but you
chitter like someone who's only citing what he's read, and never really
made any parts in a real shop, with 3-axis machinery.


That description sounds more like you.
I haven't made any claims.
We are talking about your claims, which seem to evaporate whenever
they are examined.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jim fired this volley in
:

The use of the term 2.5D in CamBam refers to the type of
tool path (all surface cutting motion is restricted to 2d).

2.5d as used in CamBam does not refer to the shape or
complexity of the 3d surface. All it means is that the
software only supports 2-axis surfacing moves. CamBam may
be able to handle 2.5D geometry better than 3d geometry, but
I doubt it is much better at it because it has no way of telling
if the geometry is 2.5d

Really? You're a regular CamBam user, then, and know all this?

In "waterline" cutting of 3D meshes, it does follow only 2D cutting
paths. It has other strategies that can follow surfaces in 3D, moving in
all three axes at once. I know this from doing it, not merely reading
about it.

Are you a regular user of it? C'mon! It's NOT professional CAM, but
it's a whole lot more capable than you give it credit for being.

LLoyd

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:23:31 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in news:ec47b233-

:



So, I should assume when I see a FeatureCAM package offered for hundreds

of dollars, and touted to be the 'current version', that it's a pirate

copy; yes?



I think I remember Andy Payne (CB author) expressing a desire to write a

future 'professional' version of CamBam. I know he's in the midst of

trying to get back to his beloved Australia from the UK before he

launches on a big efforts like that.



Specifics -- well the thing most CamBam users enjoy the most is its

built-in 2D CAD facilities, with som limited (but still available) 3D

functionality. Drawing 3D within CamBam is mostly a 'trick', but it can

be done by creating 2D shapes and translating them about the axes.



I find that I can design more than 90% of my parts (strictly 'prismatic')

within CamBam as multiple orthogonal views, avoiding all the

importation/interpretation issues that accompany doing the CAD externally

with software that isn't specifically CAM-oriented.



It also has a wealth of integrity checks for shapes and milling paths,

although those are in the form of text messages from a debugging handler,

and not highlighted on the drawing.



It's also relatively bug-free. There are a few known bugs, and Andy

faithfully addresses them in each subsequent update, but there are still

a number of them outstanding, and updates have become less frequent

recently. Generally, though, the bugs are well-known.



CamBam presently has some limited lathe capabilities, with promises of

more complete support in the future... maybe even a lathe-only version.



The user forum is about the most helpful place you could imagine for

sorting out issues outside your normal experience with the package. I

don't know of anyone who's ever been shooed out by 'experts' for not

being of their level. That's unlike a lot of other sites occupied by

self-proclaimed gods who don't seem to be able to come down from Olympus

to help neophytes, except with cryptic references to things beginners

wouldn't know, anyway.



I'd say for most users, CamBam is not only their first CAM, it's probably

their first foray into CNC machining, so there are lots of beginners

there. It's targeted at the small hobby shop. It has utility that

extends past that market, and a price that makes it fun to experiment

with, even if it doesn't suit your needs.



Lloyd


"So, I should assume when I see a FeatureCAM package offered for hundreds
of dollars, and touted to be the 'current version', that it's a pirate
copy; yes?"

Yes.

"I find that I can design more than 90% of my parts (strictly 'prismatic')
within CamBam as multiple orthogonal views, avoiding all the
importation/interpretation issues that accompany doing the CAD externally
with software that isn't specifically CAM-oriented."

I'm addicted to solids and to assembly modeling. I'll started with wireframe modeling (Cadkey and Ashlar Vellum) and I'll never go back to wireframe modeling and wasting time with drawing orthogonal views. You get any orthogonal view for free with a solid model and they are fully associative. Change the solid the views update.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

jim fired this volley in
:

It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.

You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't
reach (because the radius is too large).
A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)
routine will find those areas and allow for cutting
them with a smaller radius tool.

It sounds to me like you don't read anything before you slander.

I mentioned the radius-caused remaining-stock issue. Did you not
understand the English parts, or was the Latin-based 'radius' a problem?

I also said CamBam is equipped to do what you blather about.

The documentation seems pretty clear and complete.
I see nothing to suggest it is equipped to do rest milling.




It, too,
can sneak into those unfinished corners with smaller-radius tools WITHOUT
re-cutting air.


It isn't only corners it is also areas where the angle
of the surface creates scalloping in the finish path.

What is the name of that machining operation in CamBam?
Where do I find it in the online documentation?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

I'm addicted to solids and to assembly modeling. I'll started with
wireframe modeling (Cadkey and Ashlar Vellum) and I'll never go back
to wireframe modeling and wasting time with drawing orthogonal views.
You get any orthogonal view for free with a solid model and they are
fully associative. Change the solid the views update.

Yeah, I know... and if I weren't so busy that I could spend time "getting
addicted", I probably would. But I was brought up in the paper-drawing
era, and it works for the simple parts I *usually* do. I struggle with
full-3D packages, for lack of experience with them.

Lloyd

jim fired this volley in
:

The documentation seems pretty clear and complete.

Ahh... such a leap between reading about it and doing it! G

Lloyd

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:26:38 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:



jim fired this volley in

:



It sounds like you've never done any 3d surface milling.



You end up with stock left over that the finish tool can't

reach (because the radius is too large).

A rest milling (or sometimes called pencil tracing)

routine will find those areas and allow for cutting

them with a smaller radius tool.



It sounds to me like you don't read anything before you slander.



I mentioned the radius-caused remaining-stock issue. Did you not

understand the English parts, or was the Latin-based 'radius' a problem?



I also said CamBam is equipped to do what you blather about.



The documentation seems pretty clear and complete.

I see nothing to suggest it is equipped to do rest milling.









It, too,

can sneak into those unfinished corners with smaller-radius tools WITHOUT

re-cutting air.





It isn't only corners it is also areas where the angle

of the surface creates scalloping in the finish path.



What is the name of that machining operation in CamBam?

Where do I find it in the online documentation?



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com



I downloaded the CamBam documentation pdf.

I don't see any ability to do rest milling.

I would not say CamBan can do very much with 3D surfacing toolpath... and I would not expect it to for the price it's sold for.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

jim fired this volley in
:

The use of the term 2.5D in CamBam refers to the type of
tool path (all surface cutting motion is restricted to 2d).

2.5d as used in CamBam does not refer to the shape or
complexity of the 3d surface. All it means is that the
software only supports 2-axis surfacing moves. CamBam may
be able to handle 2.5D geometry better than 3d geometry, but
I doubt it is much better at it because it has no way of telling
if the geometry is 2.5d

Really? You're a regular CamBam user, then, and know all this?

I read the documentation. Are you claiming there are
undocumented features? Or are you just spouting more bull****?




In "waterline" cutting of 3D meshes, it does follow only 2D cutting
paths. It has other strategies that can follow surfaces in 3D, moving in
all three axes at once. I know this from doing it, not merely reading
about it.

Are you a regular user of it?

I don't have to be a user to read the documentation.
Apparently, you think that being a user entitles you to
make up bull**** about what the program does?


C'mon! It's NOT professional CAM, but
it's a whole lot more capable than you give it credit for being.

The documentation makes it clear what it does.
It has 3 surface machining strategies. Each holds one of
the 3 machining axis constant.

It also has an engraving toolpath. That tool path can move in all
axes at once but it is not really a surfacing tool. It will cut
a curve that lies on a surface. That is not an accurate method to cut
the entire surface.

Is there any other toolpath not included in the software
documentation?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:36:33 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:



I'm addicted to solids and to assembly modeling. I'll started with

wireframe modeling (Cadkey and Ashlar Vellum) and I'll never go back

to wireframe modeling and wasting time with drawing orthogonal views.

You get any orthogonal view for free with a solid model and they are

fully associative. Change the solid the views update.



Yeah, I know... and if I weren't so busy that I could spend time "getting

addicted", I probably would. But I was brought up in the paper-drawing

era, and it works for the simple parts I *usually* do. I struggle with

full-3D packages, for lack of experience with them.



Lloyd


If your serious about designing mechanical **** there really isn't much of a choice. Solid modeling is the only way to go. Think it's a huge mistake for you to keep putting this off.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:36:33 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

I'm addicted to solids and to assembly modeling. I'll started with
wireframe modeling (Cadkey and Ashlar Vellum) and I'll never go back
to wireframe modeling and wasting time with drawing orthogonal views.
You get any orthogonal view for free with a solid model and they are
fully associative. Change the solid the views update.

Yeah, I know... and if I weren't so busy that I could spend time "getting
addicted", I probably would. But I was brought up in the paper-drawing
era, and it works for the simple parts I *usually* do. I struggle with
full-3D packages, for lack of experience with them.

Lloyd

Chuckle..I have a nice fully functional Mayline Futurematic electric
lift drawing table and Vemco drafting gear next to where Im sitting.

I can whip out a drawing in just a few minutes


http://www.mayline.com/showcase/draf...ric_draft.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mayline-Futu...60-/3309475325
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIC-DRA...r/291027213095

While Cad/Cam is indeed way cool...I dont need CAM software and I dont
have a big printer so turning out a CAD print is not in my best
interests

And I work on CNC equipment.

Gunner

--
"Owning a sailboat is like marrying a nymphomaniac. You don’t want to do that
but it is great if your best friend does. That way you get all the benefits without any of the upkeep"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

Note the request by another commenter for a 3D surfacing video.

I'm still waiting for Mark Wieber, or any of his clique of idiots, to
discuss machining parts that need surfacing. I've seen no evidence
whatsoever that a liar like Mark Wieber, or any member of his clique
of idiots, has ever created surfacing toolpath. I have also seen no
evidence that these losers can machining anything other than simple
prismatic parts.

There is a lot more to CNC machining than just doing prismatic parts
and converting an old knee mills to Linux CNC.



Show us an example of what you call "3D surfacing".

Even the low-priced UK CamBam (primarily targeted to hobbiests) can do 3D
surfaces, roughing to approximate shape with flat end mills, and then, if
you have the time, pretty good surfacing at small stepovers and small
depth increments, using ball and bull-nosed cutters.

So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say most CAMs can't do it, unless
I don't understand what sort of 'surfacing' you're referring to.

Lloyd

I do a fair amount of 3D with CamBam, but to be fair anything I can do with
2D (2.5D) I do. For me its about the price. I tried a lot of different
free and low price CAM software, and CamBam was the only one I could afford
that does do 3D ok.

It's a one man show so forget arguments based on the documentation. The
documentation is way behind what it can currently do. I would rather Andy
work on bug fixes and new features than spend all his time writing doc
files. That being said, my opinion was reversed when I started learning how
to use it a few versions ago. I was frustrated by the lack of detailed
documentation in some respects.

Somebody was talking about surface accuracy of a tenth. As near as I can
tell the limitation here is the processing power. CamBam does 3D machining
of a surface in two different manners, and that's pretty much it.

1: Waterline - It does waterline at a depth increment either as a finish
(0-X roughing clearance) where it cuts the contour lines of the part only,
or it does waterline roughing with (0-X roughing clearance) where it removes
all material in the defined area to finishing that depth increment at the
contour line. For some reason the waterline method seems to leave material
I would not expect sometimes.

2: Vertical or Horizontal (scan line method) This traces the surface
either with horizontal or vertical passes, and it can be by depth increment
or no depth increment. No depth increment is nice for a finishing pass as
it will trace the surface exactly (within the set resolution) on each pass.
Using this method with boundary shapes, defined cut areas, or a cut limit
based on the surface itself is modestly powerful.

There are some tricks also... For instance you can rotate the surface (and
other associated geometry if needed), and then rotate the MOP back to the
original position to get diagonal scan lines. The transformation matrix is
pretty powerful in that respect, but there are things it gets confused at.
Fortunately they are things that confuse me to so we agree not to do those.
LOL.

What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface
mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation. In
a 3D machining operation it calculates the depth of Z based on a percentage
of cutter diameter along the scan line. For example with a .0625 diameter
cutter and a machine operation resolution of .01 it will recalculate the
depth of Z every .000625 inches. With a large operation that can be quite
time consuming to calculate tool paths. The higher the resolution the
longer it takes to calculate the tool paths, but the cut time is based on
the run mode of the machine, and the acceleration rate. Sometimes I
generate tool paths that take 45 minutes to an hour just to calculate them
on my little dual core processor CAD/CAM computer. As of the last time I
checked CamBam can actively use 2 worker threads for a MOP, but that's it.
(I seem to think it might only use one worker thread per MOP.) More
processors helps to calculate multiple MOPs at a time, but doesn't help
speed up a single MOP. It can also be memory intensive. I occasionally get
out of memory exception errors, but I am running it on a 32 bit OS that
doesn't even address all the memory I can socket on the motherboard. I do
wish that Andy had set it up to swap out to the hard drive (or maybe an
external memory drive) like we used to do back when memory was expensive and
the local computer gurus carried RAM in their fanny pack with their sidearm.
LOL.

So in theory atleast you could possibly get scan line resolution
calculations to within a tenth for a very simple small operation, but with
comparable step over it might take days to generate the tool paths. More
processing power, 64 bit OS, and more memory could probably help some, but
there really are practical limitations. I've generated code before that has
taken hours. For most of what I do with 3D I am happy to be within a .0015
for depth. As somebody else mentioned the fish don't really care. My
machines aren't accurate enough to get any better than that anyway. Well,
my Hurco mill is fair, but I run in CV mode with a 90 degree mode switch
limit and a .003 rounding limit most of the time.

The one thing that CamBam does that also looks like 3D is engrave a
polyline. With an engrave MOP the cutter will follow with the tool centered
on the line at the whatever depth RELATIVE TO THE LINE you set in the MOP.
This is handy for things like engraving a name on a surface. If the
polyline is not defined with bulges or arcs it will follow the line using 3
axis anywhere in 3D space that the line goes. It does not have to be on a
surface. I used this method to trick it into doing some 3D work before I
got a 3D CAD program and learned to use 3D MOPs in CamBam. CamBam also has
a nice tool to project lines to a surface. I use that with an engrave MOP
as a "trick" to engrave certain types of details into molds sometimes, and
its child's play that way to engrave a clients name into a mold that way.

CamBam is the best "affordable" hobby CAM program I have tried and in many
respects easier to use than some more expensive programs I've had the
opportunity to try.

It does not do "remaining material removal" machining. It would be nice,
but I have to figure that out for myself. If it did I would have saved
myself a dollar or two on broken cutters when I switch to a smaller cutter
for detail work. "Remaining material removal" machining is a fairly complex
bit of code to write. Constant engagement tool paths, trachoidal tool
paths, etc... HSM tool paths. Those would all be nice, but they aren't in
there. To some degree you can do it manually with good planning, but its
not powerful enough to do it all for you and take the thinking out of the
button jockey.







---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Gunner Asch on Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:46:50 -0800
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Lloyd

Chuckle..I have a nice fully functional Mayline Futurematic electric
lift drawing table and Vemco drafting gear next to where Im sitting.

I can whip out a drawing in just a few minutes


http://www.mayline.com/showcase/draf...ric_draft.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mayline-Futu...60-/3309475325
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELECTRIC-DRA...r/291027213095

While Cad/Cam is indeed way cool...I dont need CAM software and I dont
have a big printer so turning out a CAD print is not in my best
interests

A lot of times, it is vastly less work to do it by hand. As long
as you only want it the one time. The big selling point for CAD is
ease of making changes.

"Ya want it 2 3/4" longer? No problem.
"Ya want it with .375 radii on all corner? No problem."
"Change the Angle to 45.7° - no problem."
And so on and so forth.

I was complaining of a lot of houses all looking like they came
from the same software package. Admitted that before CAD, the houses
all looked alike because they were the same set of prints, just
flipped or rotated. "But with Computers, we can individualize each one
from the same menu of options."
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:12:47 PM UTC-8, Bob La Londe wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message

. 3.70...

jon_banquer fired this volley in

:



Note the request by another commenter for a 3D surfacing video.



I'm still waiting for Mark Wieber, or any of his clique of idiots, to

discuss machining parts that need surfacing. I've seen no evidence

whatsoever that a liar like Mark Wieber, or any member of his clique

of idiots, has ever created surfacing toolpath. I have also seen no

evidence that these losers can machining anything other than simple

prismatic parts.



There is a lot more to CNC machining than just doing prismatic parts

and converting an old knee mills to Linux CNC.







Show us an example of what you call "3D surfacing".



Even the low-priced UK CamBam (primarily targeted to hobbiests) can do 3D

surfaces, roughing to approximate shape with flat end mills, and then, if

you have the time, pretty good surfacing at small stepovers and small

depth increments, using ball and bull-nosed cutters.



So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say most CAMs can't do it, unless

I don't understand what sort of 'surfacing' you're referring to.



Lloyd



I do a fair amount of 3D with CamBam, but to be fair anything I can do with

2D (2.5D) I do. For me its about the price. I tried a lot of different

free and low price CAM software, and CamBam was the only one I could afford

that does do 3D ok.



It's a one man show so forget arguments based on the documentation. The

documentation is way behind what it can currently do. I would rather Andy

work on bug fixes and new features than spend all his time writing doc

files. That being said, my opinion was reversed when I started learning how

to use it a few versions ago. I was frustrated by the lack of detailed

documentation in some respects.



Somebody was talking about surface accuracy of a tenth. As near as I can

tell the limitation here is the processing power. CamBam does 3D machining

of a surface in two different manners, and that's pretty much it.



1: Waterline - It does waterline at a depth increment either as a finish

(0-X roughing clearance) where it cuts the contour lines of the part only,

or it does waterline roughing with (0-X roughing clearance) where it removes

all material in the defined area to finishing that depth increment at the

contour line. For some reason the waterline method seems to leave material

I would not expect sometimes.



2: Vertical or Horizontal (scan line method) This traces the surface

either with horizontal or vertical passes, and it can be by depth increment

or no depth increment. No depth increment is nice for a finishing pass as

it will trace the surface exactly (within the set resolution) on each pass.

Using this method with boundary shapes, defined cut areas, or a cut limit

based on the surface itself is modestly powerful.



There are some tricks also... For instance you can rotate the surface (and

other associated geometry if needed), and then rotate the MOP back to the

original position to get diagonal scan lines. The transformation matrix is

pretty powerful in that respect, but there are things it gets confused at.

Fortunately they are things that confuse me to so we agree not to do those.

LOL.



What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface

mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation. In

a 3D machining operation it calculates the depth of Z based on a percentage

of cutter diameter along the scan line. For example with a .0625 diameter

cutter and a machine operation resolution of .01 it will recalculate the

depth of Z every .000625 inches. With a large operation that can be quite

time consuming to calculate tool paths. The higher the resolution the

longer it takes to calculate the tool paths, but the cut time is based on

the run mode of the machine, and the acceleration rate. Sometimes I

generate tool paths that take 45 minutes to an hour just to calculate them

on my little dual core processor CAD/CAM computer. As of the last time I

checked CamBam can actively use 2 worker threads for a MOP, but that's it.

(I seem to think it might only use one worker thread per MOP.) More

processors helps to calculate multiple MOPs at a time, but doesn't help

speed up a single MOP. It can also be memory intensive. I occasionally get

out of memory exception errors, but I am running it on a 32 bit OS that

doesn't even address all the memory I can socket on the motherboard. I do

wish that Andy had set it up to swap out to the hard drive (or maybe an

external memory drive) like we used to do back when memory was expensive and

the local computer gurus carried RAM in their fanny pack with their sidearm.

LOL.



So in theory atleast you could possibly get scan line resolution

calculations to within a tenth for a very simple small operation, but with

comparable step over it might take days to generate the tool paths. More

processing power, 64 bit OS, and more memory could probably help some, but

there really are practical limitations. I've generated code before that has

taken hours. For most of what I do with 3D I am happy to be within a .0015

for depth. As somebody else mentioned the fish don't really care. My

machines aren't accurate enough to get any better than that anyway. Well,

my Hurco mill is fair, but I run in CV mode with a 90 degree mode switch

limit and a .003 rounding limit most of the time.



The one thing that CamBam does that also looks like 3D is engrave a

polyline. With an engrave MOP the cutter will follow with the tool centered

on the line at the whatever depth RELATIVE TO THE LINE you set in the MOP.

This is handy for things like engraving a name on a surface. If the

polyline is not defined with bulges or arcs it will follow the line using 3

axis anywhere in 3D space that the line goes. It does not have to be on a

surface. I used this method to trick it into doing some 3D work before I

got a 3D CAD program and learned to use 3D MOPs in CamBam. CamBam also has

a nice tool to project lines to a surface. I use that with an engrave MOP

as a "trick" to engrave certain types of details into molds sometimes, and

its child's play that way to engrave a clients name into a mold that way.



CamBam is the best "affordable" hobby CAM program I have tried and in many

respects easier to use than some more expensive programs I've had the

opportunity to try.



It does not do "remaining material removal" machining. It would be nice,

but I have to figure that out for myself. If it did I would have saved

myself a dollar or two on broken cutters when I switch to a smaller cutter

for detail work. "Remaining material removal" machining is a fairly complex

bit of code to write. Constant engagement tool paths, trachoidal tool

paths, etc... HSM tool paths. Those would all be nice, but they aren't in

there. To some degree you can do it manually with good planning, but its

not powerful enough to do it all for you and take the thinking out of the

button jockey.















---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com



Lets cut through the long winded bull**** posted above that's just marginally better than the bull**** that senile, wheezy, old, Uncle George posts on CADCAM.

The Bottom Line:

CamBam isn't suitable for doing surfacing toolpath and the results one gets aren't going to be satisfactory on the majority of parts that require surfacing toolpath.

CamBam has only one roughing surfacing toolpath strategy and one finishing surfacing toolpath strategy and both are very primitive... at best.

Next:

How about we stop being cheap mother****ers like iggy and Mark Wieber are and look at the bigger picture?

Maybe it's time to spend more than a lousy $200 dollars and move up to the westside like George Jefferson did?

This is what $1,000 will get you:

http://www.mecsoft.com/vm6/visualmill6.html

http://www.mecsoft.com/PriceVisualMILL.shtml

Anyone else got any suggestions for affordable CADCAM for surfacing toolpath?

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

Lets cut through the long winded bull**** posted above that's just
marginally better than the bull**** that senile, wheezy, old, Uncle
George posts on CADCAM.
.......

How about we stop being cheap mother****ers like iggy and Mark Wieber
are and look at the bigger picture?

----------------

Well, Bob, I guess he sure put you in your place! You'll have to stop
selling your bull**** to fishermen, too, "Unca George wannabe".


Jon, you' a liar, and/or you forget a LOT very, very quickly, and/or
you're a truly demented sociopath. I'm guessing it's all three.

Yesterday you asked for detail... you wrote that you "live for detail".

So, now Bob, who has no interest in this except that he uses the software,
gave you more of the detail you requested -- and you call him a longwinded
bull****ter for doing exactly what you ASKED?

Man! You're really ****ed in the head, son!

Lloyd

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:07:01 AM UTC-8, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
jon_banquer fired this volley in

:



Lets cut through the long winded bull**** posted above that's just

marginally better than the bull**** that senile, wheezy, old, Uncle

George posts on CADCAM.

......



How about we stop being cheap mother****ers like iggy and Mark Wieber

are and look at the bigger picture?



----------------



Well, Bob, I guess he sure put you in your place! You'll have to stop

selling your bull**** to fishermen, too, "Unca George wannabe".





Jon, you' a liar, and/or you forget a LOT very, very quickly, and/or

you're a truly demented sociopath. I'm guessing it's all three.



Yesterday you asked for detail... you wrote that you "live for detail".



So, now Bob, who has no interest in this except that he uses the software,

gave you more of the detail you requested -- and you call him a longwinded

bull****ter for doing exactly what you ASKED?



Man! You're really ****ed in the head, son!



Lloyd


Nice to know I'm only ****ed in the head when I tell the truth and refuse to be a CADCAM fanboi, like you and dumb blond, Loud.

It's now clear you're too ****ing lazy and cheap to learn solid modeling and you have no idea what tools are needed to do surfacing toolpath.

You and dumb blonde can be CamBam fanboi's all you wish but it's not a program that is capable of doing surfacing toolpath in most real world situations. That's the bottom line and it's one an asshole like you can't deal with.

I guess Jim had your right all along.

**** off and die, Loud.

jon_banquer wrote:


This is what $1,000 will get you:

http://www.mecsoft.com/vm6/visualmill6.html

http://www.mecsoft.com/PriceVisualMILL.shtml

Anyone else got any suggestions for affordable CADCAM for surfacing toolpath?



I have heard some good things about MadCam.
The 3 axis module sells for under $1000, but you need
to own Rhino also.

http://www.madcamcnc.com/start_page.html

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jon_banquer fired this volley in news:a218d1d5-5cbc-
:

**** off and die, Loud.


HAH! I was right! It's all three!

Lloyd

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:52:44 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
jon_banquer wrote:





This is what $1,000 will get you:



http://www.mecsoft.com/vm6/visualmill6.html



http://www.mecsoft.com/PriceVisualMILL.shtml



Anyone else got any suggestions for affordable CADCAM for surfacing toolpath?







I have heard some good things about MadCam.

The 3 axis module sells for under $1000, but you need

to own Rhino also.



http://www.madcamcnc.com/start_page.html



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

I've heard the same about MadCAM. I had forgotten about it. Glad you mentioned it!

It's really too bad this newsgroup has been destroyed by Mark Wieber and his clique of idiots because I think it would be nice to see a small core group of hobbyists/small shop owners that want to do more than cut simple prismatic parts.

2D wireframe CAD really isn't productive for most situations now. It's been many years since I've been in a machining job shop that used 2D wireframe CAD. Everything is solids and advanced surfaces.

Even tiny shops that do hot rods are now using solid assembly modeling:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Indus...16378821730298

Bob La Londe wrote:


What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface
mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation.

That is not all that affects accuracy. Even if you have the time
and computational power and storage capacity to produce g-code
files with millions of data points there is still the question of
whether your CNN can fluidly move to all those data points and cut
the part to within .0001".

If you had a machine that could do that
it is unlikely you would be using CamBam.

If you are making fishing lures and the end product
conforms to the original CAD surface geometry to less than
0.002" then you are doing exceptionally good job.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

jon_banquer fired this volley in
:

It's been many years since I've been in a machining job shop that used
2D wireframe CAD

You should have stopped at the word "shop".
L

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:20:57 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
Bob La Londe wrote:





What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface

mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation.



That is not all that affects accuracy. Even if you have the time

and computational power and storage capacity to produce g-code

files with millions of data points there is still the question of

whether your CNN can fluidly move to all those data points and cut

the part to within .0001".



If you had a machine that could do that

it is unlikely you would be using CamBam.



If you are making fishing lures and the end product

conforms to the original CAD surface geometry to less than

0.002" then you are doing exceptionally good job.



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com


There are some CADCAM programs that can produce toolpath directly from a surface model and don't triangulate the surfaces in order to produce toolpath.

This one mentioned in this discussion has a reputation for producing very high quality surface finishes that don't need any polishing:

http://lnkd.in/baa9swf

jon_banquer wrote:

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:20:57 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
Bob La Londe wrote:





What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface

mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation.



That is not all that affects accuracy. Even if you have the time

and computational power and storage capacity to produce g-code

files with millions of data points there is still the question of

whether your CNN can fluidly move to all those data points and cut

the part to within .0001".



If you had a machine that could do that

it is unlikely you would be using CamBam.



If you are making fishing lures and the end product

conforms to the original CAD surface geometry to less than

0.002" then you are doing exceptionally good job.



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

There are some CADCAM programs that can produce toolpath directly from a surface model and don't triangulate the surfaces in order to produce toolpath.

This one mentioned in this discussion has a reputation for producing very high quality surface finishes that don't need any polishing:

http://lnkd.in/baa9swf

The issue with producing toolpaths from meshes is not entirely
about accuracy. 3d surface cutting usually requires a ton of point
to point tool moves to cut the part. Ideally, at the micro level each
pass of the tool across the surface should be parallel to the last
pass such that the tool is constantly removing about the same amount
of material. To do this with point to point moves, each point to point
move in one pass should line up with the point to point moves of the
previous and next pass. Creating tool moves from well constructed meshes
is a way of making sure the point to point moves in each pass match
up to the moves in neighboring passes.

In most cases when the CAM software people tell you that they
create toolpaths from surface data what they mean is that an
ideal mesh is created that is aligned with the projected motion
of the tool across the surface. If you set the toolpath tolerance
parameters loose enough you will still be able to see in the
surface finish the underlying mesh pattern.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:40:17 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:
jon_banquer wrote:



On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:20:57 AM UTC-8, jim wrote:

Bob La Londe wrote:











What affects surface accuracy is of course the resolution of the surface



mesh (STL or 3DS) and the defined resolution of the machining operation.







That is not all that affects accuracy. Even if you have the time



and computational power and storage capacity to produce g-code



files with millions of data points there is still the question of



whether your CNN can fluidly move to all those data points and cut



the part to within .0001".







If you had a machine that could do that



it is unlikely you would be using CamBam.







If you are making fishing lures and the end product



conforms to the original CAD surface geometry to less than



0.002" then you are doing exceptionally good job.







---



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.



http://www.avast.com



There are some CADCAM programs that can produce toolpath directly from a surface model and don't triangulate the surfaces in order to produce toolpath.



This one mentioned in this discussion has a reputation for producing very high quality surface finishes that don't need any polishing:



http://lnkd.in/baa9swf



The issue with producing toolpaths from meshes is not entirely

about accuracy. 3d surface cutting usually requires a ton of point

to point tool moves to cut the part. Ideally, at the micro level each

pass of the tool across the surface should be parallel to the last

pass such that the tool is constantly removing about the same amount

of material. To do this with point to point moves, each point to point

move in one pass should line up with the point to point moves of the

previous and next pass. Creating tool moves from well constructed meshes

is a way of making sure the point to point moves in each pass match

up to the moves in neighboring passes.



In most cases when the CAM software people tell you that they

create toolpaths from surface data what they mean is that an

ideal mesh is created that is aligned with the projected motion

of the tool across the surface. If you set the toolpath tolerance

parameters loose enough you will still be able to see in the

surface finish the underlying mesh pattern.



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

I do not believe that the CADCAM program discussed in the Link I provided uses meshes at all. I believe it works directly on the surface data and does no triangulation.