Printable View
Hi All. I'm a guitar builder with noob CNC capabilities. I'm looking for the latest in 3D rendering and CAM software for electric guitar necks and bodies. I've been racking my brain over FUSION 360, but find it overwhelming to learn and frankly, it's a bit overkill for the guitar fabrication world. I'm also a Mac user. I've seen the various programs offered by Vetric, but alas, not available for Mac.
Cool! Welcome to the Makers' World. There ain't a One Answer to your question, much like cosmetics really. Best recommendation you will receive at this stage is to investigate what is generally used in your industry. It's okay to call on several instrument makers and ask what they are using software-wise. I'd start there.
To my limited knowledge you'll be able to model what 'appears as a guitar' out of anything parasolid or mesh based. What sort of engineering tools you'll require to actually make "a guitar" is what you need to pay attention too. Eigen frequencies (aka natural freq), harmonics/shaped laminates, etc etc comes to mind to name a few. You'll most likely need tools that perform analysis and so look for a 3D solution that is scalable and has those add-ons available.
Hi, thank you! I currently have a OneFinity CNC machine that I've been using with success. I can use Fusion for basic extrusion work, but a 3D guitar neck has complex geometry. I'm trying my best to learn Fusion, but it's very fussy and hard to get my head around. I'm a graphic designer by trade and am used to Adobe software. Fusion does not like to create complex geometry with dxf files created in Adobe Illustrator.
I would say at this case is important to select something well documented and supported. Also important is the way your brain models surrounding world. For instance, Blender is a 3D modeling tool utilising sculptor behaviour. Wery good for non-uniform models ( face, head, foot ... )
Rhinoceros 3D is powerfull for technical design - dimensions, tolerances. I would recommend Rhinoceros because:
- every data format accepted for import and many available for output;
- many plugins and add-ons avalable to meet specific needs ( for instance, calculation on-the-air the volume when dynamicaly changing an element of the shell shape;
- grass-hopper - the tool for your own plugin creation;
- perfect community support;
- well known basic design philosophy ( A-CAD philosophy creator is the head of Rhinoceros now ) ...
Thanks! Yes, I've worked with Rhino and successfully modelled a 3D guitar neck. The trouble came when I needed to generate G code for CNC. Rhino does not have that capability and I had to use an offshoot Meshcam software, which didn't work very well
Hi Kenny. Can't vouch for F360 I've never seen it, let alone used it. One of those cad data centralizing entity or something like that if I'm not mistaken (avoid that).
For your industry/modeling req; Catia, NX, and Creo all have fully parametric advanced solid & surface modeling capabilities as well as freeform modeling. They'll plug-in top industry analysis solvers as well as hosting high performance dxf/dwg importers. If your budget allow ofc, I wouldn't look elsewhere those 3. (Disclaimer: NX user since version NX10 here).
Hi,
I use Fusion, and it does have a learning curve like all software,. I'm not aware that it is any harder than any other, but can tell you its way less than Mastercam which is one
of the world leading CAM solutions. If you want to know how much Mastercam costs....you cant afford it.
If you are going to learn to use any given software then I would have to recommend Fusion, bang for your buck it is as good and in most cases better than the competition.
It is clear also that Autodesk have a long term strategy to grow the Fusion user base to be a significant, maybe even dominant player in the worldwide market. Already it has a very respectable
market share of something like 45% of the 'tiered market' and 24% of the overall market. The point being that as the software grows there will be more shared resources, training sources etc.
Being able to share designs with other enthusiasts etc.
https://www.cnccookbook.com/cnccookb...-the-best-cam/
Craig
Hi Kenny - Stay with Fusion. It will loft necks easily once you figure out 3D stuff. Its as easy to use as Rhino but its parametric so changes are easy and you can analyse the surfaces in various ways. Happy to do a video tutorial if you publish a basic design here or PM me a sample file (iges, step, Rhino, fusion) I've done necks before and various lofts. I would not describe Fusion as fussy. Other parametric CAD's are really fussy compared to Fusion. The learning curve on any CAD is steep but once your over the hump you'll wonder what all the fuss was. Peter
edit - do a hand sketch with the major features you want and the dimensions. Scan or photo it and publish here. I'll figure it out from there....
I'm surprised that Rhino wasn't selected,the CAM plug-in isn't that hard to get to grips with.I'm not fond of Fusion or the way Autodesk operates,so I've never delved deeply into the capabilities.I do use Freecad and you might find the Marz workbench worth investigating as it is specifically for guitar making.Like most Freecad things,it is sparsely documented or known about but there is at least one good Youtube video about it's capabilities.Then if you can create the parts,you switch to the Path workbench to generate the Gcode to cut them with.Again,not a well documented workbench but a few helpful videos are out there.It wouldn't cost you anything to investigate,beyond your time.
Hi RAL - I've used rhino for over 30 years. It has always been a very good value package. It excels at freeform stuff. But as I get deeper into Fusion I can see that F360 can do everything that Rhino can do (except very sophosticated freeform swirly surfaces and the stuff that Grasshopper does) and in time it will get even better. It's a commercial product so does cost for the use. Rhino costs as well but its a one off cost vs a subscription. Fusion for hobbyists is very good, its limited but has adequate function for "hobby" use. All software takes time to learn and we all learn in different ways and different timetables. But eventually we get over the hump and it becomes second nature. Peter
Lots of loud CAD claims embedding surface classes & curvature continuity features however they are just that, box standard with little to no tol options. Rare we've received parts from low-end CADs that didn't needed a full curvature/continuity revamping just so toolpaths can generate and flow without too much errors. Many failing entirely. (for info; we do molds). That said, when surface modeling is paramount to the success of the product downstream (i.e. CAM) it's imperative to sidekick with an industry proven software suite to begin with. Don't let the 'quantity marketing' get in the way!!
Loud CAM == ok for two surfaces and for putting a marketing youtube vid together. Often NOT OK for a multi-features part though. *Beware*.
Hi Mechanix - Fusion uses T splines and very good lofting tools plus it has surface analysis. So far I'm very impressed with its surface quality. I've been involved with making curvature continuous surfaces (automotive, yachts, consumer goods) for a long time and it can be tricky. Looks great on the screen but then machine it and its crap... So it's also a strong function of the operator and their experience... Peter
eg what you see on the screen is built on a rendering mesh that may have no "real" connection to the analytical surface (real intended surface). The rendering mesh is smoothed so nearly always looks good! With NURBS the analytical surface can be very rubbery depending on the geometric tolerances set... There's many traps for new players when it comes to creating high quality surfaces...
Hey Peter. I'm not finger pointing at one in particular while in reality there are just too many to expose. I can see where the cad data comes from by looking at the metadata with notepad+, for instance. Not a week goes by without us having to patch & stitch parts just so to have them pass cam. Quite a nuisance if you ask me. Meanwhile parts that are modeled with half-decent cad tools does play well more often than not.
Just an observation (rant?) mind you. Message I'm trying to pass is; if surface modeling & downstream is important for the success of your operation/investment, get an industry proven CAD tool, not a CAD toy.
Very cool reco regarding Marz Workbench. This is what I'm looking for, sparsely documented free things.
Hi,
I think this is good advice. No matter what software there is always a learning curve, and so it makes sense to choose a solution that is 'Most Likely' to produce a good resultQuote:
Message I'm trying to pass is; if surface modeling & downstream is important for the success of your operation/investment, get an industry proven CAD tool, not a CAD toy.
for your purpose. I have little expertise in the area of complex and curving surfaces so cannot comment on whether Fusion is good, bad or just plain ugly with respect to complex
surfaces. What I can say , from personal experience, is that it does a good job with all engineering parts including surfaces, I've made, not counting the FEA module, and the Electronics/PCB module.
I would it as an 'industry proven CAD tool, not a CAD toy', and yet is very well priced, maybe more than many hobbyists are comfortable with, but very VERY competitive relative
to other comparable software.
Craig
I’ve used Mac, Fusion and Solidworks - They are brilliant, versatile and overwhelming at times, still love them.
However - I’ve got dedicated PC and Vectric software for my CNC. It’s very intuitive and simple to use. There are no weeks of learning, you will be a pro in one day.
I think they well balanced all the tools you might need for woodworking in one CAD/CAM package - love it…
I’ve also got a laser addition to it.
In my opinion- price, functionality and simplicity of use and no Clud subscriptions are well worth getting a dedicated PC.
It is not for engineers- it is more for makers.
1st. Rhino provides tools to build specific script ( ar add-on ) for parametrical G-Code generation.Quote:
generate G code for CNC. Rhino does not have that capability
2nd. You can build G-code with excel using exported from Rhino model data.
3rd. Rhinoceros CAM
I take it you checked out the youtube videos by the originator and Joko Engineering? As I said,it only costs you a bit of time to view what can be done. Nobody here has mentioned the cost of purchase or subscription for the commercial packages.I suppose there might be an amount of stuff of dubious origin on bit torrent sites,I wouldn't know,living in a country where they have all been blocked by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyJames
It might be worth looking at some of the cad programs out there that don't have built in cam and just export and import into cam . I use bobcad , I hate the cad portion but the cam works well for what I machine which is mostly 2.5d . I lean on viacad pro for cad designs and it's a good software for the price . My favourite to work with was mastercam for a one stop solution but it's a bit more than I'm willing to pay for my own shop . Viacad has a similar feeling when designing which gives me some comfort , though it isn't as powerful as mastercams designing tools
Solidworks for makers is also a possible alternative which is often overlooked , it's subscription based but it's only 10 bux a month
It is very cool and I'll be glad if you give FreeCAD a fair chance. I come from a world where SolidWorks is king for 3D modeling and Altium Designer is king for schematic capture and PCB layout. Most of my tasks have been electronics oriented, so I am more skilled with Altium than SolidWorksQuote:
Originally Posted by KennyJames
When I became partially retired / part time consultant I made the decision to go FOSS and picked up KiCad for electronics and FreeCAD for 3D modeling. I will agree that FreeCAD is sparsely documented. What makes it a little worse is that they have been releasing minor updates every few months and the UI gets changed just enough knock me off balance for a moment. But I believe the changes are ultimately for the better not just to be different. There are a lot of addon Workbenches available that are contributed by individuals or groups (Marz is a good example,) some higher quality than others, but the core software is developed by a team that I know has a common vision for the future and is intent on making it a solid and reliable tool for anyone that doesn't need to share models with SolidWorks users.
It includes the Path Workbench for CAM and toolpath development. I cannot compare it to other affordable CAM tools, but I've been able to get it to do what I want... usually.