That's right! I forgot about that. (never used it myself) funny, I was thinking to myself, as I wrote the previous post, doesn't SWKs have something like that?
Thanks for pointing that out.
SW
"Wayne Tiffany" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:
snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu (JDMATHER) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
Two camps:
I have heard, from some mold designers, that surfaces is the design choice. CadKey et-al. Probably because surface technology was better developed and took a strong foothols in the late 89's and early 90's. And because, until of late, the solid modelers didn't have the tools. It seems that the lines between surfacing tools and solid tools is fading.
Bookmarked Thanks.
Cheers
SW
I tend to disagree, to a degree. I have been doing mold design strictly in solids since I started using SW in '96. However, that is when I started doing actual mold designs period (rather than building them), so I have never used surfaces at all. It can be difficult at times doing it in solids only. I can't be sure, but I bet that there are just as many difficulties using surfaces also. It all boils down to the techniques and methods that you use and get accustomed to.
Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Cliff
I sounds like you know this stuff. I have more of an intuitive gut feel than hard facts. (I sure as heck don't have the brochures in front of me.) I've seen a many software tool for both solid and surface modeling. Used mostly a few solid modelers.
All of the mid range solid modelers ( SolidWorks and the like) have decidedly fewer tools and gadgets for the creation of surfaces. The mid range surface modelers have more. That much I can say.
BTW I remember APT. Studied it in school (back in 87) I thought it was the hottest thing. We also did Compact 2. Remember that one.
SW
Cliff wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Wow, glad to hear it's still being used today. (from a nostalgia point of view.) I haven't used it outside of the academic, so it's nice to see that something one has studied is actually still being used.
Am I right in thinking that most of the cad/cam tools post process directly to G-code? (and for the most part quite bloated output)?
SW
Most actual full CAD/CAM systems use the ISO-4343 CLDATA format for output files and then postprocess those, same as APT. It's often hidden from the novice user though. The full CAD?CAM systems are also fully 5 axes capable for the most part AFAIK.
Remember ... these things grew out of APT and plotting toolpaths. That allowed things to be made with NC (and later CNC) machines while about anyone could use a drafting board.
Define "bloated output" . That's confusing indeed.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Cliff) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m03.aol.com:
"bloated output" Extraneous and redundant code.
Much the same way MS Front Page produces web pages.
SW
Not a problem. Someone did it in the post for some reason; there are some very good reasons to do so in some cases. In others, who knows? Poorly written post?
Or operator error at the CAD/CAM or CAM level . That happens lot too .... and much may be intentional safety moves ....
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.