Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mill_drill] You CADs...

Expand Messages
  • Corey Renner
    Rick, all of the parts in my photo folder are 2.5d http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mill_drill/photos/album/1867655616/pic/list cheers, c
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Rick,
      all of the parts in my photo folder are 2.5d


      cheers,
      c

      On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Corey Renner <vandal968@...> wrote:
      2.5D is when the Z-axis is moving in discrete steps rather than continuously.  So, Z moves to a new height, then X&Y move around for a bit, then Z moves to a new height, repeat.  Most parts that are easy to draw in 2 or 3 views fall into this category.  Items that have compound surfaces are 3D machined, so things like auto bodies, curvy consumer-electronics like mice, cordless phones, etc.  Generally, if a part is complex enough that you need to see a 3d rendering rather than simple projected-views, it's a 3d part.

      cheers,
      c


      On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Rick Sparber <rgsparber@...> wrote:
       

      Corey,

      Can you give me an example of a "2.5D" part?

      Rick

      On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Corey Renner <vandal968@...> wrote:

      3D is not required to run CNC parts, in fact, the VAST majority of cnc'd parts (even tricky, impressive ones) are 2.5D.  Rick, you've seen many of my cnc parts, some of which I think are fairly impressive.  Only two of them are true 3d parts.  Even so, at this point, I would recommend that people start out with a 3D program initially.  I am impressed with Solidworks and Alibre.  I still use AutoCad on a weekly basis for quick and dirty 2D problem solving, although I'm trying to get away from it.  It's a hard habit to break however, since I've used it since 1989.  I've used over a dozen CAD programs over the years, most of them professionally.  Years ago, I did most of the isometric assembly instructions for Tyco Superblocks (Lego clone).  Those were done in AutoCad.

      I think that AutoCad and Rhino probably have the easiest learning curve, but that doesn't mean that I'd recommend them at this point.  Getting proficient in a CAD program takes a while, you want that investment of time to last.  AutoCad has served me well, but it's been obsolete for mechanical design for a while now.

      The Linux alternatives mostly seem to exist so that people can express their political leanings.  I am not aware of any companies using them professionally.  Despite its many flaws, Windows gives the most and best options to those that have a need of serious CAD/CAM tools.

      cheers,
      c

      On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:42 AM, RG Sparber <rgsparber@...> wrote:
       Even 3D is rarely essential in a hobby shop unless you are running CNC.




    • CS Mo
      Sorry, I wasn t clear. What I meant by a single setup was that the cutter, in relation to the part, will remain at the same angle. For example, if you want to
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant by a single setup was that the cutter, in relation to the part, will remain at the same angle. For example, if you want to machine a half sphere on a standard machine, your final result will be made up of many steps (possibly very very small steps). A haxapod can machine the dome with the face, not the corner, of the cutter making a mostly step-less cut.

        --CS

        >2.5d parts do not need to be machined in a single setup. In fact, many
        >(most) end up having the back surface shaved off as a secondary operation
        >to arrive at the proper thickness and keep the fixturing simple.
        >
        >A standard 3-axis machine can easily cut on all 3-axis simultaneously, both
        >of my cnc mills do it with ease and they are hobbyist type machines, not
        >VMC's. It is true that most mills are usually moving only 2 axis at a
        >time, but this is usually because the part is simple enough to not require
        >it, or the operator doesn't know how to do it, since it can be quite a bit
        >more complex.
        >
        >cheers,
        >c
        >
        >On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, CS Mo <cs@...> wrote:
        >
        >> **
        >>
        >>
        >> Rick, typically a 2.5D part is one which can be machined in a single setup
        >> (without moving the part) on a standard 3-axis machine. So, a plate with
        >> holes and pockets all on 1 face would be a 2.5D part. A true 3D part would
        >> be something like an exhaust manifold where, on a standard 3-axis machine,
        >> you might have to move the part to machine all the curves.
        >>
        >> A standard 3-axis machine is really a 2.5D machine because it can only cut
        >> in 2 axis at a time. A hexapod would be an example of a true 3D machine.
        >>
      • Richard FInley
        I had been using Alibre for a year or so and decided to take a course in AutoCad at the local technical college just to learn a littlie more about Cad. I could
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I had been using Alibre for a year or so and decided to take a course in AutoCad at the local technical college just to learn a littlie more about Cad. I could do the class assignments in a couple of hours on the computer in AutoCad and then go home and do the same assignment in about 15 minutes with Alibre. I had a copy of TurboCad (2D version) on my computer, but seldom used it. I tried the same drawings in TurboCad and had the same results - 15 - 20 minutes rather than an hour or two. AutoCad is an industry standard and very powerful as well as being very expensive - out of reach for the average hobbiest.  I would compare Alibre with Inventor as for as what I saw in the class that I took. It seemed that AutoCad would be much harder to be self taught than Alibre was and Alibre was much cheaper.

          Richard 
        • Jerry Durand
          ... I use TurboCAD Platinum which is 3D but I only have the 2.5D CAM plugin. Works fine for everything I need. -- Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On 12/2/2011 7:44 AM, Corey Renner wrote: 3D is not required to run CNC parts, in fact, the VAST majority of cnc'd parts (even tricky, impressive ones) are 2.5D.  Rick, you've seen many of my cnc parts, some of which I think are fairly impressive.  Only two of them are true 3d parts.  Even so, at this point, I would recommend that people start out with a 3D program initially.  I am impressed with Solidworks and Alibre.  I still use AutoCad on a weekly basis for quick and dirty 2D problem solving, although I'm trying to get away from it.  It's a hard habit to break however, since I've used it since 1989.  I've used over a dozen CAD programs over the years, most of them professionally.  Years ago, I did most of the isometric assembly instructions for Tyco Superblocks (Lego clone).  Those were done in AutoCad.

            I use TurboCAD Platinum which is 3D but I only have the 2.5D CAM plugin.  Works fine for everything I need.
            -- 
            Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc.  www.interstellar.com
            tel: +1 408 356-3886, USA toll free: 1 866 356-3886
            Skype:  jerrydurand 
            
          • FocusKnobs
            Several people have mentioned Alibre - are you referring to Alibre Design PE? If so, what CAM package are you using with it? Lou
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

              Several people have mentioned Alibre – are you referring to Alibre Design PE? If so, what CAM package are you using with it?

               

              Lou

               


              From: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Richard FInley
              Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:50 AM
              To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [mill_drill] Re: You CADs...

               




              I had been using Alibre for a year or so and decided to take a course in AutoCad at the local technical college just to learn a littlie more about Cad. I could do the class assignments in a couple of hours on the computer in AutoCad and then go home and do the same assignment in about 15 minutes with Alibre. I had a copy of TurboCad (2D version) on my computer, but seldom used it. I tried the same drawings in TurboCad and had the same results - 15 - 20 minutes rather than an hour or two. AutoCad is an industry standard and very powerful as well as being very expensive - out of reach for the average hobbiest.  I would compare Alibre with Inventor as for as what I saw in the class that I took. It seemed that AutoCad would be much harder to be self taught than Alibre was and Alibre was much cheaper.

              Richard 

            • Richard FInley
              I m using Alibre Design Ver.10. It s pretty old, but works for me. I think ver. 12 is the latest. I m not using a CAM program and have heard that the Alibre
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm using Alibre Design Ver.10. It's pretty old, but works for me. I think ver. 12 is the latest. I'm not using a CAM program and have heard that the Alibre CAM has had problems. They may have fixed it in ver 12. 

                Richard
              • clumsysoftballerz
                someone mentioned inventor in another post, but for those that aren t familur inventor is almost identical to solidworks. I use solidworks 2008 & now 2011 and
                Message 7 of 30 , Dec 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  someone mentioned inventor in another post, but for those that aren't familur inventor is almost identical to solidworks. I use solidworks 2008 & now 2011 and took a class at the local JC. Many of the models we made the professor (who is really an Auto CAD guy) showed the "tricks" to building it IN INVENTOR just because he had recorded demos he had made in inventor and all of the building concepts were identical. very surprising to me. buttons are a little different, but the functions are almost identical.

                  FWIW solidworks was VERY easy to learn. I joined SolidJott and usingsolidworks.com and have learned enough that taking the class was a waste of time. On the bright side I did teach the professor lots of little time saving tricks learned from using solidworks.

                  which ever can you chose, base at least part of your decision on the availability of support and demo videos. makes life a lot easier.

                  also learned a LOT from eapprentice.com about first solidworks, then mastercam for solidworks, now mastercam X5 stand alone.

                  --- In mill_drill@yahoogroups.com, Richard FInley <ref772@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'm using Alibre Design Ver.10. It's pretty old, but works for me. I think ver. 12 is the latest. I'm not using a CAM program and have heard that the Alibre CAM has had problems. They may have fixed it in ver 12. 
                  >
                  > Richard
                  >
                • RG Sparber
                  CS, Thanks for the clarification. As for being able to change a dimension and have it ripple through all drawings, Alibre does that too. Rick ... From:
                  Message 8 of 30 , Dec 4, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    CS,

                    Thanks for the clarification.

                    As for being able to change a dimension and have it ripple through all
                    drawings, Alibre does that too.

                    Rick

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mill_drill@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf Of CS Mo
                    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 12:01 PM
                    To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [mill_drill] You CADs...

                    Rick, typically a 2.5D part is one which can be machined in a single setup
                    (without moving the part) on a standard 3-axis machine. So, a plate with
                    holes and pockets all on 1 face would be a 2.5D part. A true 3D part would
                    be something like an exhaust manifold where, on a standard 3-axis machine,
                    you might have to move the part to machine all the curves.

                    A standard 3-axis machine is really a 2.5D machine because it can only cut
                    in 2 axis at a time. A hexapod would be an example of a true 3D machine.

                    In regards to the original topic - if you are a student or teacher, or
                    otherwise involved in education, you can get Autodesk's Inventor for free -
                    I find it very intuitive and easy to use. Although the people I know that
                    know AutoCAD well tell me it is very difficult to use.

                    What I like most about it is you can draw something and then modify it by
                    changing dimensions rather than redrawing parts. If that makes any sense...
                    I use it for both 2D and 3D sketches.

                    --CS
                  • RG Sparber
                    Corey, Thanks. The pictures do drive the idea home. Rick From: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mill_drill@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Corey Renner Sent:
                    Message 9 of 30 , Dec 4, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Corey,

                       

                      Thanks. The pictures do drive the idea home.

                       

                      Rick

                       

                      From: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mill_drill@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Corey Renner
                      Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 12:34 PM
                      To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [mill_drill] You CADs...

                       



                      Rick,

                      all of the parts in my photo folder are 2.5d

                       

                       

                      cheers,

                      c

                    • RG Sparber
                      Lou, Yes, Alibre Design PE. I use it to draw projects and look them over in 3D. It is also helpful for finding overconstrained situation. After I m satisfied
                      Message 10 of 30 , Dec 4, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Lou,

                         

                        Yes, Alibre Design PE. I use it to draw projects and look them over in 3D. It is also helpful for finding overconstrained situation. After I’m satisfied with what Alibre has told me, I have found that making the project has few surprises.

                         

                        Rick

                         

                        From: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mill_drill@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of FocusKnobs
                        Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 6:03 PM
                        To: mill_drill@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [mill_drill] Re: You CADs...

                         




                        Several people have mentioned Alibre – are you referring to Alibre Design PE? If so, what CAM package are you using with it?

                         

                        Lou

                         

                      • Ken
                        William, Out of the ones you listed, Sketchup was the easiest for me to learn. But I don t consider Sketchup to be a CAD program, like the others you listed.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Dec 6, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          William,

                          Out of the ones you listed, Sketchup was the easiest for me to learn. But I don't consider Sketchup to be a "CAD" program, like the others you listed. It can be used to infer your ideas, which is what we all really want it for and with the right tools it can output to CAD format but that's about it. It's entire "workflow" is completely different than a traditional CAD program.

                          I think the reason I did well with Sketchup is that there is a lot of documentation available. I've got two really good books and the rest I learned via videos on youtube.

                          I export my raw data to a program called Kerkythea. Similar to a POVray. It's a 3D rendering program. Does some unbelievable stuff.

                          Ken


                          --- In mill_drill@yahoogroups.com, William Abernathy <william@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > All: I've tried to learn AutoCAD, QCad, and Google SketchUp with little success.
                          > For most of my drawings I end up using an ancient version of Adobe Illustrator,
                          > which interface I'm very comfortable with, but has obvious deficiencies as a
                          > CAD/CAM tool. Try as I might, I can't get very far with the CAD programs before
                          > I have to shrug and get back to the old tried-and-tired.
                          >
                          > Can anyone recommend any of these CAD tools as "easiest to learn?"
                          >
                        • clumsysoftballerz
                          sketchup definitely was ready to learn (first cad I ever tried) if I need to design a shelving unit or enclosure it is my preferred tool. no way I want to
                          Message 12 of 30 , Dec 7, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            sketchup definitely was ready to learn (first "cad" I ever tried)

                            if I need to design a shelving unit or enclosure it is my preferred tool. no way I want to make 40 part files in solidworks to do the same thing... although if I ever have free time it would be kind of cool to build my cnc table in solidworks just to see how much it weighs ;)

                            --- In mill_drill@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <kenrinc@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > William,
                            >
                            > Out of the ones you listed, Sketchup was the easiest for me to learn. But I don't consider Sketchup to be a "CAD" program, like the others you listed. It can be used to infer your ideas, which is what we all really want it for and with the right tools it can output to CAD format but that's about it. It's entire "workflow" is completely different than a traditional CAD program.
                            >
                            > I think the reason I did well with Sketchup is that there is a lot of documentation available. I've got two really good books and the rest I learned via videos on youtube.
                            >
                            > I export my raw data to a program called Kerkythea. Similar to a POVray. It's a 3D rendering program. Does some unbelievable stuff.
                            >
                            > Ken
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In mill_drill@yahoogroups.com, William Abernathy <william@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > All: I've tried to learn AutoCAD, QCad, and Google SketchUp with little success.
                            > > For most of my drawings I end up using an ancient version of Adobe Illustrator,
                            > > which interface I'm very comfortable with, but has obvious deficiencies as a
                            > > CAD/CAM tool. Try as I might, I can't get very far with the CAD programs before
                            > > I have to shrug and get back to the old tried-and-tired.
                            > >
                            > > Can anyone recommend any of these CAD tools as "easiest to learn?"
                            > >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.