Re: LMAO

Your planed path looks like trouble brewing to me. It depends upon you, the machinist, the working environment and how you implement the changes.

What kind of working relationship do you have with the machinist?

G-Code is tool path, you can visualize the toolpath.

He programs now, taking this away from him may downgrade him in his mind, you are taking some of the skill, challenge, fun and pride away from him and his position. If you do that without involving him in the decision and don't take his feelings and input into account you could lose him.

If you want to learn CAM you need the machinists input and help. A trade off you teach him SW, he teaches you may be the best path traveled.

You won't.

You mean CAD?

That may explain some of your feeling and problems implementing SW.

Yep, that's what keeps the juices flowing.

Tom

Reply to
brewertr
Loading thread data ...

You explained yourself no apology necessary IMO.

Tom

Reply to
brewertr

A very good relationship, which is why the cad/cam system, came into conversation.

They wants an easier life, (don't we all!), lol

I see what you mean about taking the programming away from them, but what I am hoping for is that we both work together, as we do at the moment with Solidworks. They do not use Solidworks, but after I model something I get them to check if:

1, is it possible to make. ( Solidworks sheet metal flanges come to mind). 2, is there a better way to model it, (I try to model a part, the same way as he would make it, but not always). 3, can we make it better and cheaper.

I want to make the model, get them to verify it, then all of us, work out the best way to get it from Solidworks to the machines. In this context, we will both have more responsibility and much more to learn, than before. But that is what keeps us all here, because we don't get bored, wow, that's twenty years in September.

Thanks

Reply to
pete

Don't listen to him jonnie......you should make that link a permanent fixture for your sig. Just the fact that YOU think the link is COMPLIMENTARY to you, makes it even more hilarious. KEEP THE LINK.....IT KEEPS ME SMILIN. :)

YourPal Barn

Reply to
barn_rubble

Yes I do.

I don't know what package he will buy but in either case it's not a task for a beginner who doesn't know CNC machines nor the CAM package IMO.

Tom

Reply to
brewertr

So I can't choose what I wish to respond to?

Reply to
brewertr

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Which is precisely why most CAM systems suck. They work just fine for milling, but once you get outside of that box, they all suck.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news:f1mj93hkh6fgpd3hitedff4ou460v6itka@

4ax.com:

LOL. You don't want to head down this road.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

On what? A 2-axis lathe? Big deal.

You are completely clueless to how I program and what my background is. I once posted that more often than not I'll just use Word as a text editor and from that one post you have deduced that I've never used a CAM program?

We have PartMaker. What part of "sucks" has you confused?

Thanks for nothing.

Speaking of apples and oranges, do you have any clue at all why all CAM systems suck for turning? Especially anything beyond a single path 2 or

3-axis machine.
Reply to
D Murphy

innews: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Dan, Although too many do it, it is not nice tormenting the homeless, crazy people lying along the virtual sidewalks, lying in their own mess, mumbling incoherently. It is not an arguement that anyone can win, and no amount of patient, carefull, explaining will suddenly illuminate the tortured mind of these unfortunate souls. They just crave attention, and will flail about untill they get it, in whatever form they get it in. Sad, isn't it?

Move long folks... Nothing (helpfull) to see here.

Reply to
Half-nutz

Half-nutz wrote in news:1184623526.184621.139290 @m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

LOL.

True enough I suppose.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It's not about them working for easy parts on simple machines. I never said CAM didn't work for that. I did say that all CAM systems suck at turning.

Why? It's so very simple. So, I need to go sit in a class for a week to learn all the work-arounds for the crap that doesn't work properly.

Yeah right. You're a clueless fool if that's what you think. Do you suppose that people spending a lot of money on a very complex machine have you tool up simple cut off and chamfer jobs?

I was enngineering manager before I went into sales. Before that I was an AE. Before that I programmed machines for a living. You don't suppose that I've had the occasion to help clueless fools like yourself at various CAM companies dope out the output from their non-functioning posts, do you?

Yeah, that's the problem. I can program a 12-axis three path machine without CAM but I can't figure out how to draw a pretty picture.

Does that mean you'll become obsessed with me now?

Really? I suppose that "such things" are harder than generating the code without CAM?

Tell me oh wise one, what is the advantage of using a CAM system when you have to patch and fix the output?

Oh yeah, I know, I need a better post. Pfft. The one the experts can't get right? So what I have is a very expensive scientific calculator and text editor.

OTHOH, I have a fairly decent piece of software written by the builder taht costs less than a post. It uses MS Excel as the math engine and has better 3D rendering of the machine and cutting than the most expensive multi-function lathe system.

I said they suck. I didn't say they couldn't do simple programming.

I can do it without them.

No help at all. Why don't I send you some machine manuals and you can whip up a perfect post for me?

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Of course not. Nothing existed until fairly recently that would even come close to working.

You could cobble together bits and pieces, but I could do that back when you had to keep swapping floppies in and out of the computer.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news:fg4p93haqam4v3q3j44pl40klq9vrkpqnr@

4ax.com:

So you do agree that it's the underlying ancient code that is the problem?

Interesting. Why all the nit picking then?

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news:fg4p93haqam4v3q3j44pl40klq9vrkpqnr@

4ax.com:

Yup. And for the most part it works far better than what you'd spend 30+ grand on. You can call it kludged but then again you're fairly clueless to anything that's happened much after the Carter administration.

Still that CAM system doesn't help much if you want to program a wire or a mill or anything else other than that specific model machine.

OTOH, given that machines and controls are becoming more capable and more complex, MTB CAM systems just might be the future. If you think about it, the output can be dialed in specific to the machine model. Speeds and feeds that cause harmonics could be avoided. Complex functions and interference points are known to the MTB, but not to some mouse jockey cranking out code for some generic CAM system, so the programs generated by the MTB's system are complete and safe.

Reply to
D Murphy

Jon Banquer was banned second time recently on Emastercam Forum and on his way to be banned third time

Reply to
winnie.tehpooh

First off you refuse to answer a simple question. What do you feel is a fair wage for a journeyman machinist in San Diego?

You need help you didn't get from your beginner's videos?

[ I'm looking for concrete and practical ideas for improving the SolidWorks Help documentation.

Quote: "Example of something that will get removed: My name is Jon Banquer or cliff or any one of their aliases."

Matt Lombard Author: SolidWorks 2007 Bible

formatting link

[
formatting link
Folini

UPDATE -- July 8, 2007 -- Jon didn't respect our agreement, posting comments under fake names. Jon's authentic and fake comments are all posted from the same IP address, xx.xxx.xxx.xxx. I can now see that my trust in Jon was misplaced. ]

[ ""Why not just use your real name instead of stooping to their level?"

Because it can't be done without wasting massive amounts of my time!"

- Jon Banquer on Jul 9 2007 ]

Tom

Reply to
brewertr

Cliff wrote in news:j59ra31gneuf52e1g4hl6fn1eau1pc1nma@

4ax.com:

Something that could at the very least write correct code for the tool paths. The whole sliding headstock thing has them baffled.

The Z directions are wrong, the stupid software always wants to move Z after a cut to some "safe" place. Which on a Swiss causes the turned section to be pulled out of the bushing. They couldn't support all of the axes nor all of the functions. Nevermind generating two or three path programs which are properly synched.

I suppose if you can't do simple high school math you could use it to get toolpath tangency points. But I can do it much faster with a calculator.

But if your interested, come on over and show me how wonderful whatever software you're dependent on works for programming Swiss.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Feh. So why does some tiny program that uses MS Excel for the math do what a $30,000.00 software package can't do all for less than a post costs?

Ya think?

I'm still waiting for some guru like yerself to finger out how to do it.

Reply to
D Murphy

Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Which voice in your head told you that I was programming in some other coordinate system? Here's a clue, when you use the headstock for Z-axis motion, then your cutting takes place mainly in the Z+ direction. Opposite of a lathe where the tool moves and cuts mainly in the Z- direction.

All that don't support Swiss.

Won't work.

The machines actually run two or three seperate programs simultaneously. Sometimes control of certain axes are handed over to one of the other controls (paths), or axes can be synched, and coordinate systems of axes in one program can be superimposed onto another axis in another program. Picture a part advancing out of the guide bushing while being turned. Now picture another slide doing a two-axis contour of a bore on the end of the advancing part. You can see how you need to superimpose one coordinate system on the other as the work is moving.

Sounds like a lot of trouble to me.

I'll wager I know a fair amount more about the subject than most.

Nah, that's just simple spindle synch at a ratio, usually 2 to 1.

Heh, yeah been there done that. Why should I spend my money to train someone while they develop a product to sell to others?

Reply to
D Murphy

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.