|
honda whisperer posted:5k for a post. Jesus, gently caress. MasterCAM was quoting us $750 for a post processor and my (now former) employer thought that was too much.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Yeesh, the reseller I work for starts at $1k, I did find a decent post writer on Fiverr if y’all want a link. Ran me $275 for a ShopBot imperial post for my makerspace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
It’s been in the back of my mind for years to start offering my services writing custom posts, ever since interacting with the guy we had writing powermill posts for us at a medical device company I worked for. He was super cool and got to work from home and ended up filling me in on how he did everything. After that I’ve gone in and did custom work on all the posts used where I work when necessary. Would be a nice little side gig. All these recent posts are putting that thought back in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
FWIW there are not a ton of accomplished post processor writers - it’s a super narrow niche in the industry and by god if it’s in your ken, you absolutely can make some dosh on that. I’d much rather see an ad for your website than Practical Machinist threads from 2012 that never resolved trying to find some of these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:I’d much rather see an ad for your website than Practical Machinist threads from 2012 that never resolved trying to find some of these things. Practical Machinist is the worst forum ever. Makes GBS look functional. Interesting, moderate, but not difficult question answered by... 1. "It's not that hard, but why would I tell you?" 2. "Lol, you young kids can't figure anything out! In my day we did it on a sliderule..." 3. "gently caress off, u prbly aint evn in the US. Lik im gunna tel u."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Reading Practical Machinist forums really gave me insight as to why Mastercam is the way that it is .
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Practical Machinist is the worst forum ever. Makes GBS look functional. They have a really small and slow but interesting and polite woodworking forum that I like to read occasionally, but it is all extremely boomer, if very skilled and knowledgeable boomer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
tylertfb posted:Reading Practical Machinist forums really gave me insight as to why Mastercam is the way that it is . My favorite remarks by the instructor at the MasterCAM reseller I took training classes with was always some variation of "this feature was coded this way because a large legacy customer for MasterCAM is still running the original machinery that prompted this feature creation and they don't want to learn to use some of the smarter feature recognition additions to the software" followed by "I'm mostly going over this in case you ever find yourself in a situation where this outdated approach to a machine setup comes in handy". Random left field thought: Are there any CAM packages that will output machine logic statements in posted code? Like, it used to be possible to write programs for FANUC for bolt hole programs/etc. with a series of IF/THEN/ETC. statements and some parameters and have the machine controller do the math for various patterns of holes/operations. All of the CAM software I work with now seems to do that on the CAM end and just output normal code, and I know that feature isn't enabled on a lot of controllers out there, but it would be neat to have for demonstration purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Do you mean translate part features to like controller canned cycles? Yeah that is possible to do via mastercam c hooks + post editing for instance. Powermill’s (now an autodesk product but was Delcam when I used it heavily) scripting capabilities will let you do this also. When fusion opens up the API access to the manufacturing space it’ll be possible also. Just depends on what the controller supports. Although: the whole point of canned cycles/conversational programming is to allow you to do stuff at the controller, without touching the CAM, so if you have the CAM computer available, I don’t see what you gain by not just making programs to do bolt holes or whatever the regular way. Sure if you’re making the same holes you can make a spot/drill/chamfer/tap template or feature recognization thing (what does camworks call it again?) to help you program stuff faster/more uniformly, but I don’t see why not to just post it the standard way at that point. tylertfb fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:
Closest thing I can think of is NativeCAM which is more or less a conversational add on for LinuxCNC. It does all of the calculations in gcode using controller logic. I can't imagine a more generic CAM system working this way given how different all of the controls are. My BobCAD posts generate controller logic to replace some of the canned cycles but they are pretty simple/limited and it is not really the CAM generating them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
tylertfb posted:Do you mean translate part features to like controller canned cycles? Yeah that is possible to do via mastercam c hooks + post editing for instance. Powermill’s (now an autodesk product but was Delcam when I used it heavily) scripting capabilities will let you do this also. When fusion opens up the API access to the manufacturing space it’ll be possible also. Just depends on what the controller supports. Memory limits on really old FANUC controllers that did not recognize canned cycle codes (or were not set up to recognize them), could not "drip feed" programs from network locations because they could not communicate with the business network, yet had macro programming settings enabled. We had a really old 3.5 floppy drives to load programs on and transfer to the machines in question (which were another hard memory limit), so basically I had to split what would normally be one huge hole pattern into a bunch of programs across floppy disks or macro program things out. It was interesting to learn how to do, but I wouldn't want to have to do it all the time. Also just having it as an option on the CAM end would be a neat "look how intelligent this software is!" coding nerd cred.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Mastercam is able to use subroutines for repetitive processes like bolt patterns and roughing -> finishing with the same tool-path but the post has to be written to accommodate that. I went through that process recently with our reseller to support more complex programs on our older machines with limited memory and it was a complete pain in the butt since these sorts of controller features tend to be vendor specific and our machines are wildly different than any our reseller's post programmers had ever seen. We work in cabinetry and our industry's CNC machines tend to not follow conventions found elsewhere. It took six months for them to figure out how to handle the horizontal drill heads in our drill blocks. Doesn't help that Mastercam's post language is just bonkers. I was able to write posts from InventorCAM (HSMWorks under the hood I believe) to one of our machines myself in a few days without much issue since its mostly just Javascript and the documentation is freely available but I can't really makes heads or tails of the Mastercam posts and they'll want a PO number if you want current documentation. Sauer fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Oh crap it’s not a ShopBot post processor, is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
No we use industrial grade machinery from Biesse and Homag. Their modern offerings are programmed with "conversational CNC" where you describe the location and metrics of features (Diameter, Depth) and their own optimizer figures out how to do what you want based on the tools installed in the machine. The Mastercam post for those machines are essentially just outputting drill tables and splines for milling in the machine's macro language. The optimizer on the machine does the g-code generation. Mastercam's feature based drilling actually works amazingly well in this scenario. Still have to do any milled contours the old fashioned way since feature based milling is garbage. I can go from a CAD solid to producing a part in just a few minutes. Our older machines were build in 1998 and programmed using regular old g-code and a classic CAD/CAM workflow and have OSAI controllers that don't follow the usual "fanuc" syntax. The basic G-codes (G0 to G4) work as you'd expect but outside of that you better make sure to read the manual. Sauer fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Oh that’s pretty cool, even if bothersome. ShopBot motion control systems are awful for any CAD system to work with. I’m trying to figure out a good 4’ X 8’ CNC router for a future makerspace that actually uses GCode and I’m haunted by it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Current ShopBots can run G-Code instead of their native SBP format if you like. I haven't done much with it, since the Fusion 360 OpenSBP post works fine. But I have verified that it works for the sort of simple parts you'd be making with a 4x8 router, anyway. Their control software still sucks rear end though. I would completely believe it if you told me they hadn't updated a single line of code since Windows 98.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Since we’re on the topic of 4x8 CNC routers-anyone have experience with AvidCNC’s stuff? All the woodworking YouTube content creators seem to have them and love them which always makes me suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Current ShopBots can run G-Code instead of their native SBP format if you like. I haven't done much with it, since the Fusion 360 OpenSBP post works fine. But I have verified that it works for the sort of simple parts you'd be making with a 4x8 router, anyway. Interesting, I’ve not gotten the one I’m in charge of to accept GCode in a variety of attempts with tweaked PPs. Could be our older model or something. And yeah, no getting away from that terrible control software. I’m tempted to look at a CAMaster Stinger or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:Oh that’s pretty cool, even if bothersome. ShopBot motion control systems are awful for any CAD system to work with. I’m trying to figure out a good 4’ X 8’ CNC router for a future makerspace that actually uses GCode and I’m haunted by it. At the very beginning of my CNC career I worked in a place that shaped surfboards on a custom cnc router made by the people that became this: https://dmscncrouters.com/product-lines/freedom/freedom-8/ It's a nice USA made machine with very servicable and simple Fagor controls. No big bells and whistles, but just works, and is easy to service. There are probably tons of used ones knocking around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Thanks! That’s an awesome link.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
One place I wish fusion spat out canned cycles is for the lathes. All our lathe guys have way more experience with and prefer the way it's done at the control. 90% of the time it's fine but one has live tooling and can mill and another is a twin spindle multi axis with live tooling. Every time milling comes up its a mild pain to copy paste the cam gcode into the middle of their program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Do you still have to do that with the machining add on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Re : surfboard router. I just remembered this commercial Dell did at our shop. I’m the dude in the grey sweater with stripes faking like I’m working on these computers: https://youtu.be/Iqr9oaHZUKg
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
If you’re on the 3DX SOLIDWORKS for Makers platform, check your emails to add CAM. Mine just came through. There’s some training in the wiki on the Makers Support
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:One place I wish fusion spat out canned cycles is for the lathes. All our lathe guys have way more experience with and prefer the way it's done at the control. 90% of the time it's fine but one has live tooling and can mill and another is a twin spindle multi axis with live tooling. I think it does? But if I recall right it's finicky as to features, you can ask it to make canned cycles but if there is something outside the scope of the canned cycle it just won't do it, nor will it tell you why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:Do you still have to do that with the machining add on? Yes Yooper posted:I think it does? But if I recall right it's finicky as to features, you can ask it to make canned cycles but if there is something outside the scope of the canned cycle it just won't do it, nor will it tell you why. There are a lot of it cycles that do automatically but actual turning tool paths aren't one. They're just full x/z move to move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
What's the best not-a-ton-of-money place to go to start learning how to use whatever the current version of CATIA is? My recently-bought-by-a-huge-corporation employer is going to be migrating from Solidworks to that, so I need to do some digging/reading/etc. and was wondering if any other thread regulars are familiar with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
You can get 3DX CATIA for Students for $60, but I don’t know what kind of proof you need to provide that you are a student.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
The FAQ states that they use an automated verification system to determine student status with authorized academic institutions. So that's out Edit: Found some tutorial videos on YouTube for v5 but stuff for v6 is hard to find in English that isn't too heavily accented for my dumb brain to easily process. Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
I was thinking of upgrading from FreeCAD to "3DEXPERIENCE SOLIDWORKS for Makers" but this seems kind of hosed:quote:Files and data created with your Maker account are digitally watermarked and can only be opened up in another Maker platform. You cannot open up files created with your Maker account within a commercial or academic platform. Also what happens if you make $2100 in profit in a year? Gotta shell out for that $4000 proper solidworks license? But of course you can't import your existing work, as explained above...
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
The pipeline is something like Makers > Entrepreneur > Full price. The entrepreneurs program is free commercial for one year, half price the next, and I think 75% the year after. Neutral file exports still work, so there’s that. There is a submission process to remove EDU watermarks from folks moving from educational to commercial, but given the pain in the rear end they make it to remove watermarks from EDU files (I.e. it’s possible, but I’ve never seen or heard of a successful submission), I don’t have any particularly high hopes around Makers stuff moving the same way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
According to the info page about the educational watermarks, you have to explain to them how you ended up producing commercial work with the educational edition, and why you can't just remodel the parts in the commercial version. I can't think of a single valid case that addresses both requirements. Effectively you can just ignore that possibility. SolidWorks is just an unbelievably user-hostile company. 4000 dollars for a license plus 1300 a year for "maintenance" if you want to use it in any situation where you're interchanging parts from other people, since there's no forwards compatibility or ability to save back to a previous file version. The former I understand for technical reasons; the latter is completely egregious racketeering. Why on earth should I not be able to save my SolidWorks 2022 file back to v. 2016, especially if it's only using basic solid modeling features? Ugh. I really was hoping that Fusion 360 would break SolidWorks' monopoly, but the inability to save files locally is a complete dealbreaker for anyone doing serious work with it, and it looks like they're going down the same route as SolidWorks with piecemeal feature access and gradually jacking up the price to what they think you can afford. It's also not the industry standard yet, so I can't recommend it to people who want to do CAD work professionally (e.g. my students), but maybe it'll get there someday. Rhino costs $995 one time and its files are fully backwards- and forwards-compatible. You can buy it once and use it forever and never be bothered again. If Rhino had a parametric kernel as well, I'd probably never use anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
So, since Internet Explorer is being retired in June of this year, what is the next software piece required to display SolidCAM/CAMWorks setup sheets correctly after generating them? The output is an XML file that doesn't display anything in Edge or Chrome, but displays just fine in Internet Explorer. Mind you, I don't want to see the actual code, I want to see the resulting page when the code is parsed. Google is amazingly unhelpful and just points me to extensions that display the code in Chrome or Edge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Do you have an example one you’d be willing to share? I can ask nerd friends and my CAMworks colleagues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Your CAMWorks colleagues could answer the question with any of their sample setup sheets, as they function exactly like the ones I use (I just swapped the CAMWorks logo for the company logo). The XML output from SolidCAM/CamWorks using the template file for a given setup sheet format displays as intended only in Internet Explorer, but does not display as intended in other browsers (I'm pretty sure the tutorial for setup sheets specifically notes this as well). Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Mar 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
I didn’t realize there were sample ones my dude, I’ll check in but like maybe be cool about folks trying to help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
I know I have a reputation here for hating this particular CAM software, but I'm not sure how I could have worded that post to be friendlier or whatever. I didn't even rant about how stupid it is to use XML output for setup sheets or anything! EDIT: Maybe they intend to incorporate a viewer the way they put NCEditor into the package for viewing posted code, but they aren't telling anybody and they haven't responded to my support emails since 2019. Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Mar 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:If you’re on the 3DX SOLIDWORKS for Makers platform, check your emails to add CAM. Mine just came through. I love how this works, just purchase a $0 dollar package and it will be added to your account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:I know I have a reputation here for hating this particular CAM software, but I'm not sure how I could have worded that post to be friendlier or whatever. That’s on me, then - it read kinda short, so I apologize for misunderstanding. HCL Technologies are definitely a crew of folks. I’m less in tune with their support setup than I am for SOLIDWORKS. One colleague just got back to me - he suggested checking XSLT output to see if Excel will open it up. It could be locked behind having a full Office subscription. I tried one, and I’m not sure what the mapping is supposed to match to, so it isn’t rendering completely right. I may just need to match it to a template.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Typically you have to have an XSLT and XML file in the same directory in order for Internet Explorer to parse the XML file correctly, but I'm not sure how Chrome fails at this while IE does it just fine. I'll give Excel a try tomorrow, but I do know Word removed support for XML/XSLT parsing in 2020, so it may be the same story there. I'm mainly just trying to avoid being SOL generating setup sheets come June if HCL doesn't have a solution for when IE gets retired by Windows updates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2022 23:14
|
|