[daniellyall]

they are changing the access to fusion soon what is meant to be 2 stage login with a better protection system, so people can use it with nda. you can bring files into fusion off line do all what needed within the 30 days back it up to a stick or what ever remove it from you system then go back on line. they are listening what`s really good. they are going to do a local storage that is a don`t know when.

the changes they did on the last cam update it`s way better and they are improving it, to a point it`s getting the boys with HSM are bit pist off felling left out

the cam is just good **** 5 clicks and your cutting and it`s the new fancy stuff to.

the last improvement I suggested they ask me to define what the suggestion was, I did that got no response did a smart arse post about no response, there reply was we are doing something about we are going to show it instead of using words. and guess what they are and have. they have done half of it, the rest is in 2 weeks.

and some of what they are adding next year will almost make it a do all program

[RCaffin]

Hi Ian

what 3 or 4 axis CAM package is capable of receiving information from a CAD file, and driving a stepper motor,

I think the correct answer is NONE of them.

The big reason for this is because the companies which make CAD/CAM SW are NOT the companies which build machines, and vice versa.
And since every high-end machine is a bit different, you have to have a separation somewhere. That is at the g-code level.

I assume all CNC stuff is driven by G code telling it where to go and for how long etc.

It sticks in my mind that not every machine can take a g-code program and execute it. Some of them seem to use a proprietary in-house language of their own creation. Some sort of interactive language which goes with their massive control panel ... I may be wrong here - someone correct me if so.

Look at web browsers and HTML. There was a 'standard' right at the start, promoted by several people including Mosaic, but then Microsoft decided to get in on the act and started creating their own incompatible version of HTML. So the first thing a web page (the HTML code) had to do is to do is ask what browser it was running under. Firefox? Sahara? Internet explorer? Opera? ... Fortunately. MS got told in no uncertain terms, and these days they do (mostly0 conform to the W3C standard.

why do we have so many cam packages doing the directing.......surely you go from A to B with the same information from the Cad drawing file?

Nope.
Take a simple engineering drawing of a part and give it to 4 different workshop guys to build. Will each of them go through exactly the same set of steps in the same sequence to make the part? Extrremely unlikely. They will all go about it in different ways. It depends on how each of them likes to tackle a task. And so it is with CAM packages. Different SW designers order the machining operations in different sequences. In fact, one workshop guy might do the same task in several different ways, depending on what machines he has available at the time.

There are standards in the CAD and CAM worlds - and slowly more vendors are starting to conform to them. But they all have different approachs to the whole concept. It's still a jungle.

Cheers
Roger

[handlewanker]

Thank you all for the nitty gritty on CNC control, CAD/CAM and software generally.......I'm going to take up Fusion 360 as the source for CAM on the SVM-0 mill when it arrives, and also the source for all my CAD exploits seeing as you need to be in it to be a part of it as others see it......going alone on a thin branch is for Chameleons and the like.

3D CAD is a whole new kettle of fish to me, as I'm used to 2D CADKEY from the year 1995..... that is, the light version for training purposes that came with the full blown packages the firm I worked for started out with when they went to CAD instead of the old wood drawing boards, pencils and tracing paper.

It didn't go anywhere for me in the real World, but enabled formal drawings to be made in proportion and to scale......on a Compaq 286 laptop computer with DOS...... that gave a look see to how practical a design really was........rough concept sketches tend to get out of proportion and give a false impression of the viability of a design until you come to make it.

Being a hobbyist, the time taken to do a job is irrelevant, but at the same time needs to be fairly efficient if anything is going to get done.

I'll still be learning up on G code big time, as I think that you need to have the basic knowledge to understand the workings of the mill and the SW it uses.
Ian.

[RCaffin]

Hi Ian

I'll still be learning up on G code big time, as I think that you need to have the basic knowledge to understand the workings of the mill and the SW it uses.

True, all true.
Got much hair left?

Cheers
Roger

[handlewanker]

Hi Ian


True, all true.
Got much hair left?

Cheers
Roger

Hair......at 77 I have hair up my nose in abundance more than I have on my head....LOL.

If this means I'll be tearing my hair out getting to grips with Fusion 360, so far with the tutorials it's looking good..... as far as the CAD part is concerned.

Until I get to grips with the CAD, the CAM will come much later......it's a deciding what you need the CAD for.....anything that has complex curves definitely needs CAD to get the CAM to produce the G code.

I can imagine the upturned shape of a boat's hull would be a good candidate for CAD and CAM, and making chess pieces with their complex shapes is high on my to do list too.........for that I'd need to get the 4th axis on the go.

Luckily, down in OZ we're coming into Spring, weather wise, so there'll be a big incentive to get out to the garage and make swarf when the mill arrives and the G code starts to flow.
Ian..

[LeeWay]

To get proficient with the complex stuff, you need to start with the simple stuff. This will help you build up some knowledge to get you to a higher level. Like climbing a stair case. Start with the first step. Draw a 3D square. Then jump over to the CAM side and face mill it. There. Now you are into it.. Build up from there.

[RCaffin]

Hi Ian

I'm in Sydney.

we're coming into Spring, weather wise, so there'll be a big incentive to get out to the garage and make swarf

You haven't got the bug yet, obviously. I have been in the workshop (drafty unheated barn) every day for the last couple of weeks! Ugg boots and a hoody - they are the thing!

I am trying to machine GT2 pulleys, but it seems that there are complications. The Chinese belts and pulleys do not seem to conform to the published profile, so I have to wait on some made-in-USA belts to check the profile any further. That's for another thread.

Cheers
Roger

[handlewanker]

Hi Roger, oh yes, I have the bug when it comes to messing with machines and tools in the den, just been extremely tied up renovating my bathroom ....constructing a new shower and spa bath etc as all the tiles started falling off the old one after 35 years.....being on a wood floor it has been quite complicated to get it water tight as I'm doing away with the shower base and going onto a sealed and tiled floor........almost at the dry wall stage now before tiling can begin.

Hi Leeway, I think that constructing the box for a starter would be within my limited expertise as the tutorials show a lot of how to's etc......remembering which box does what is the hard part at the moment......needs a good bit of memory.........it's going to be a learning curve all right, but one I need to have with the CNC lark getting under way.
Ian.

[ihavenofish]

gates deliberately does not publish the correct drawing for the teeth if i recall. i dont know how far off it really is.

[hanermo]

Any nr of companies will allow downloads of 3d models on common components.
Partsource, 3dcentral, misumi maybe, etc

[ihavenofish]

Any nr of companies will allow downloads of 3d models on common components.
Partsource, 3dcentral, misumi maybe, etc

yes, lots. but what im saying is gates, who owns the gt2 patent, deliberately posts the wrong cad data, so you can't make your own pulleys with it. it just means you need to beware what you use as it may not be correct. im sure there are some correct ones out there on other sites but im betting most are sourced from gates.

[RCaffin]

gates deliberately does not publish the correct drawing for the teeth if i recall. i dont know how far off it really is.

They don't need to 'publish' it. The USPTO has done that for them.
You cannot get a patent without publishing the details (with an exception for the Defence Dept and 'national security'). And you can download both the patent and the drawings in the patent quite freely, and for free. Trawling the USPTO can be a fun afternoon sometimes: there are both cute and really wierd ideas there.

I believe the Gates patent is 4,515,577 (May 1985), although this differs slightly from other versions I have seen by having a slightly flat tip to the teeth. Looking at the drawings in the patent and reading the text leads me to suspect that Gates very deliberately tried to be as obscure as possible! Silly idea: that never stops someone determined. Other versions of GT2 I have seen use a simplified design which continues the curve right around the tip. I guess this means that there ARE variations in what is called the GT2 profile anyhow. But the Chinese variation seems a bit large: ther teeth are much lower in height than the simplified design. However, I have yet to compare the Chinese GT2 with the common USA GT2, so some doubts remain.

EDIT: the Gates patent features TWO profiles. The second one has a curved tip to the tooth which is much closer to other published drawings. But even so, we are talking about a difference of maybe < 50 microns. /EDIT

My understanding is that the GT2 profile was developed by Gates when the patent on the HTD expired, so one has to guess that there might have been a second motive in addition to the 'public' one of improving the profile to get zero backlash. Nonetheless, the GT2 profile is an improvement. But now Gates has moved on to the GT3 profile, which is VERY close to the GT2 profile - so much so that the rest of the industry does not seem to have bothered following.

EDIT: I can't find a patent for the GT3 - maybe it is too close to the GT2. /EDIT

I have some doubts as to whether Gates is posting deliberately wrong profiles for the GT2. They may be posting a simplified version themselves. However, I have not found any data for the GT2 profile on the Gates web site, so I don't know. A URL would be much appreciated for this.

If anyone can point me to other models for the GT2 profile I would be grateful. PLEASE! But some of the CAD models I have seen just fake their way past the actual teeth, on the grounds that 'you don't need to know that'.

Cheers
Roger

[inov8r]

So 4 machines have been delivered and nobody is posting a word or pics. What's up with that?

[G59]

What's up with that?

You have to be a member of a special group to see those.

No but seriously, Lou has a thread of his machine SVM-0 on the go with video etc...

[inov8r]

You have to be a member of a special group to see those.

No but seriously, Lou has a thread of his machine SVM-0 on the go with video etc...

I am aware of Lou's thread, just kinda wondering if there are other's that I wasn't aware of.

[handlewanker]

Hi, I think it would be better if we all posted our opinions of the SVM-0....and SVM-1 &2 if you want...... on this thread, otherwise we'll be chasing all over the place looking for obscure titles that relate to the same machines as and when they arrive...... a new section on the vertical mill section would need to be created.....whatever........eventually it will gravitate to...."just another SVM type mill has arrived".

I suppose there will always be those that want to really push the SVM-0 to the absolute limit, and in so doing lament the shortcomings of it in doing so......but part accuracy will always be the main attribute in the end.
Ian.

[jim_r53]

As I recall, in general a U.S. patent is only valid for 17 years - in some circumstances they can be extended but that is unusual afaik. In principle, a patent gives the holder a legal foundation to sue you for infringement of their intellectual property. I am not an attorney so I don't know all the ins and outs but it is not a silver bullet. It is unlikely, but possible, that a patent holder could come after you if you make a few of their Spacely Sprocket for your own use. If you make a thousand to sell, you might want to have an attorney if the patent is still enforceable. (Your mileage may vary).

[whimsical]

I cut some 120 tooth GT2-5 pulleys from a DXF from Gearotic. The belts seem to fit very well.
gearotic.com

[handlewanker]

So, does that mean we can buy one of Defeng's machines, copy it precisely and then go and sell a few to recover the initial cost.

We could do just that if a few dimensions were changed to make it "different"......that's what the other guys do when you patent something and forget to cross all the T's.

Defeng has the infrastructure to produce the mills at prices the other guys couldn't hope to match, so no need to Design protect at huge cost and chase anyone through foreign courts who infringed his designs.

I think software is a different matter as most if not all is written offshore at minimal cost and then sold on the home market as an OEM product....... or so I have read.
Ian.

[Tkamsker]

We Do not know if He still has the Infrastruktur to do so that is why any one Who really physically receive a machine Should let US know .. just a line "I am Happy received an xxx yyy machine and customs and shipping cost zzzz" probably then i will also receive my goods later on ...

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk