[RCaffin]

the wonderful world of TURBOCAD once again

Been there, done that, gave up.
TurboCAD was designed for making house plans and visualising them. It may be good for that.
It has an arcane and obscure method of working in 3D which involves moving a 'working plane' around and building on that. It does NOT seem to have any concept of actually working with 3D objects. At least, the version I had didn't. Equally, it did not seem to have the idea of importing separate objects into a build and joining them up.

AutoCAD was a right pain: obscure and a very long learning curve.
SolidEdge was better, but the version I have was buggy and they would not upgrade me without $$$. Significant learning curve.
Solidworks was powerful but it had a long learning curve.
Alibre was less expensive and somewhat easier to use - but only sometimes.
Other older CAD SW like wireframes are just 'old'.

What you may not know is that the same few guys developed Solidworks, then SolidEdge, then Alibre (afaik). They kept letting the accountants and 'managers' take over and dictate to them - and so they left each time.

I am old fashioned, stubborn, and difficult to teach. I still think and design in 3D, but I draw (very, very fast) in 2D. It works - for my stuff.

cheers
Roger

[daniellyall]

those few guys have worked on a lot of different programs if it the guys that left solidworks to do there own thing AD should of grabbed them to do fusion

[Tkamsker]

Been there, done that, gave up.
TurboCAD was designed for making house plans and visualising them. It may be good for that.
It has an arcane and obscure method of working in 3D which involves moving a 'working plane' around and building on that. It does NOT seem to have any concept of actually working with 3D objects. At least, the version I had didn't. Equally, it did not seem to have the idea of importing separate objects into a build and joining them up.

AutoCAD was a right pain: obscure and a very long learning curve.
SolidEdge was better, but the version I have was buggy and they would not upgrade me without $$$. Significant learning curve.
Solidworks was powerful but it had a long learning curve.
Alibre was less expensive and somewhat easier to use - but only sometimes.
Other older CAD SW like wireframes are just 'old'.

What you may not know is that the same few guys developed Solidworks, then SolidEdge, then Alibre (afaik). They kept letting the accountants and 'managers' take over and dictate to them - and so they left each time.

I am old fashioned, stubborn, and difficult to teach. I still think and design in 3D, but I draw (very, very fast) in 2D. It works - for my stuff.

cheers
Roger

Hi
I use Turbocad pro on the Mac it has all the pane concept you can do a lot in 3d i also had a Look in all the leading Systems but they are verry expensive and have steep learning curve ..and at the end they all Cook with water -
My Brother in law did crazy things in rhino and now working on 5th axis
Rhinocam or madcam will be something i Look at thx thomas

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk

[daniellyall]

you can just go to fusion 360 then you have the best of both word`s, it`s not that hard there are a lot of good youtube vid`s now that will help

[LeeWay]

Agreed. If I was just starting out with CAD, Fusion 360 is what I would focus on. That is for a mill.
For plasma cutting especially though, it is hard to beat the 2D aspects of Turbocad. Especially for nesting parts manually. I don't think Fusion would handle that so gracefully.

[daniellyall]

Agreed. If I was just starting out with CAD, Fusion 360 is what I would focus on. That is for a mill.
For plasma cutting especially though, it is hard to beat the 2D aspects of Turbocad. Especially for nesting parts manually. I don't think Fusion would handle that so gracefully.

nesting in fusion is that not when you draw a nest in fusion for birds, you can`t nest in fusion they don`t have it, that is years away you can do it by hand, plasma is close but you need nesting with it unless your doing one part or nest it your self, there is a lot of half done stuff in fusion.
I still have to full back to V carve pro

[ihavenofish]

Agreed. If I was just starting out with CAD, Fusion 360 is what I would focus on. That is for a mill.
For plasma cutting especially though, it is hard to beat the 2D aspects of Turbocad. Especially for nesting parts manually. I don't think Fusion would handle that so gracefully.

the nice thing about the current stage of fusion development is that you can take your post right there, and sent it to them (they have a special board for this) and they will genuinely put it on a to do list that with enough others "agreeing" with your request could move up the chain in priority.

meaning: if you dont see a good feature that really should be there, ask for it.

autodesk is notorious for not listening to customers. at all. they seem to really want to break that trend with fusion 360. so push em i say

[RCaffin]

I lost track of where they went later on. Maybe they DID go to Fusion - but I have no knowledge.

Cheers
Roger

[bikepete]

Solidworks founders are now at Onshape:

https://www.onshape.com/team#dept-management

[handlewanker]

Oh dear......there seems to be more Chiefs than Indians in the Cad World......fundamentally, all one needs to make a stepper or two move in the right direction is something that generates G code from a drawn object, be it in 2D or 3D.

The second criteria is not to spend an arm and a leg getting the code, as the code is the end game without being too high tec in the rendition of the object, with a non commercial hobby aspect in mind as the main reason.

For instance, designing a mill etc would ultimately mean you need to draw with CAD the whole lot just to imagine how it will go together, whereas all I need is the code to make the individual part.

If TURBOCAD cannot recognise an outline and generate G code then I'm barking up the wrong tree with it.

I realise you do need a conception to realise the object in all planes even if the mill can only reach some of them.

So, no walk around inside the object or pulling apart, rotatinjg and putting together movements are needed, just the code to produce the outline and shape as would be needed to actually mill it with a single cutter of choice......and that does not include generating code to enable an ATC and different tools to enter the act.......that is getting really complicated.

One things for sure, you can only mill something that the particular mounted cutter can get at, without hacking into the vice or fixture etc.....that means a repositioning op to mill the other parts of the object......manual tool changeover sequences do bring a complication to the coding.

I realise you could mill an object complete and then cut it off the basic material when it's completed......mostly that would suit a 4th axis whereas in a vice or on the table the job is cut only where you can get at it.

So as Mach3 is the virtual universal program of choice for a mill controller and is quite economical, even if the experts do state it has gross drawbacks that render it unusable for serious production and advocate other control programs.......what would a CAD/CAM equivalent cost that handled BASIC needs, and who markets it?

Fusion360.....Solidworks.......Vectrics.....Rhino ...Alibre......Inventor ......to name a few are out there, but at what cost and functionality?

Do I actually need a Cad/Cam program to do the relatively simple XYZ axis moves, probably only if there are lots of them needing to be written repetitively and for various configurations that would take quite a few lines of code all manually written, and for one off jobs?......LOL........do I need a CNC mill for one off jobs......shock horror.

The answer is, of course a CNC would make life easier for a piece of work that a manual mill would also do but boringly so if you had to remake the part due to a few multiples, a redesign or rework.

However, with a complex pattern like an engraving, then a bought in program from Vectrics would be the only way to do it.
Ian.

[RCaffin]

Hi Ian

Welcome to the real world of (hobby) CNC machining.

No, TurboCAD cannot (or rather, does not) generate g-code. It's a drawing package, not a CAD/CAM package.

> what would a CAD/CAM equivalent be that handled BASIC needs cost, and who markets it?
Ah - first define 'basic needs'. It is not that simple!!!
Then, distinguish between CAD and CAM. CAD (computer aided design) does DESIGN work. It does not generate g-code.
If you want to generate g-code, then you will need a CAM package. Some of these take other company's drawings and convert them. Others are linked to a CAD program from the same company.

Also remember: there are CNC programs designed to help CNC operators correct the obvious bugs in the g-code programs the engineers have created. Oh yes, many CAM programs can generate 'faulty' g-code.

If you want to do 2D carving in the wood router style, then there are several programs which are not expensive - <$1k. They have their passionate supporters, and work quite well for that job.

If you want to do full-on automated g-code generation in 3D, then you may find yourself spending $200k per seat.
Have a look at Boris the spider, at Machining Delcam's 'Boris the Spider' on a Hermle C50U with PowerMILL
I think the Powermill SW from Delcam cost in the order of that much. Lovely spider though.

But a REAL hobby CNC user writes his own g-code from scratch ... :violin:

Cheers
Roger

[daniellyall]

cheap and basic Vectric cut2D, cheap and 3D fusion360, free and 2D draft sight no g code out put

if you wont simple Ian get cut2D it`s simple easy and puts out Gcode, good vids and all that should take a couple of hours to learn how to use it $149 US

[handlewanker]

cheap and basic Vectric cut2D, cheap and 3D fusion360, free and 2D draft sight no g code out put

if you wont simple Ian get cut2D it`s simple easy and puts out Gcode, good vids and all that should take a couple of hours to learn how to use it $149 US

Hi Dan, OK, as we're drifting into other fields, I'll give Cut2D a look see, and Fusion 360 too.

I realise the difference between CAD and CAM, and more or less how they work together, just didn't put it right previously.

By basic needs, I probably mean 2 D rendition of a flat shape with many curves and small sections requiring lots of X and Y moves......adding some Z moves to do holes and pockets and the code gets interesting, but I can still understand how it's generated.

Going to 3D to create progressive Z moves with X and Y too is not going to happen with simple manual coding......I expect you could achieve that with a 3D probe on a pattern.

Cad/Cam something I'm going to need with the SVM-0 mill eventually if I want to make parts that have odd shapes etc.
Ian.

[RCaffin]

Going to 3D to create progressive Z moves with X and Y too is not going to happen with simple manual coding

Oh Yeah????
Much of my manual programming is in 3D. Yes, you have to concentrate a bit, but it is quite possible.
If there is a mathematical relationship controlling the shape, then it is easy. If there are geometrical conditions - same thing.
But trying to generate the code to carve a figurine on an A axis mount - then you go to CAM for sure.

cheers
Roger

[why9faster]

It appears this discussion is starting to head down a wrong turn and maybe better suited for a completely new thread about CAD/CAM etc?

[Tkamsker]

Depends if machines got delivered and we See them in use ..

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk

[inov8r]

I use Cut2d to engrave graphite and copper electrodes. It does a good job in the way of wysiwyg but be forewarned the tool paths are crazy weird. In soft material it isn't a problem but it will take off slotting for no reason and starts new cuts right next to one that it could have easily moved over from. Also no roughing/finish pass feature. I am using ver 1.5, so the new desktop or pro versions may be improved.

Attachment 291194
This electrode is about the size of a half dollar and has been through a burn so the edges are a little rounded.

[handlewanker]

Hi, I have to wonder with all the cad/cam packages out there, if anyone really understands the stuff they're writing, hence the large number of programs just to move axes in the same old way across the board......a mill is a mill after all, nothing rocket science about making a stepper or servo motor turn on and off periodically.

We need another Joseph Whitworth to combine all the cad/cam packages into one that is universal and doesn't make glitches, but too many different people are making too much money holding the peasants to ransom, especially now that they have their heads up in the clouds.
Ian.

[RCaffin]

We need another Joseph Whitworth to combine all the cad/cam packages into one that is universal and doesn't make glitches,

ROTFLMAO
We have at least a dozen of those guys (or companies)out there already. Ask any CAD/CAM vendor and they will tell you that their package has done that already. Their package is already 'universal'. You don't need anything else.

Ah ... for the guys who are for real, the tab probably starts around $100k. US$ too. Takes a LOT to emulate a skilled engineer's brain.

Cheers
Roger

[handlewanker]

Hi.....still confused......how many cooks does it take to stir the soup with the same spoon....metaphorically speaking.

By that I mean, as all mills have motors driving ballscrews, then 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?

Grinding it down to the basic requirements......what 3 or 4 axis CAM package is capable of receiving information from a CAD file, and driving a stepper motor, without going into mortgage repayment?.....it still receives the info from a CAD drawing, in whatever format it's saved in, and produces the G code to make the ball screw motor turn.

I'm quite aware that industry, making mega bucks per minute, needs complicated CAM solutions to earn their crust of bread against the competition doing likewise, and all using different CAM packages to get there.

The SVM-0 is a relatively simple mill, (so are the SVM-1 & 2, only a bit bigger).....in that it (they) derives the axis motions from ball screws and stepper motors.......it does not need high end tec CAM to make the screws turn provided the CAM deciphers the CAD and produces G code to make the moves......I assume all CNC stuff is driven by G code telling it where to go and for how long etc.

I had a look at the Fusion360 tutorials on UTUBE........the hardest part is learning to click on the myriad of boxes to make the drawing happen........this is similar to TURBOCAD where you also have to enable boxes and drop down menus to make it happen.

It appears that TURBOCAD is more for creating wood work and structures, as in buildings and their framework, so no CAM is present in the package or required to produce G code where no CNC is envisaged.

For the same price of $150, Fusion 360, having both CAD and CAM, would be the better option as far as I can see.....as long as it produces the G code from the CAD drawing, all's well that ends well.......learning to do the CAD would apply to both packages anyway, so I'll abandon TURBOCAD and sell it on.
Ian.