design cad, turbo cad


Folks -
I am learning, slowly, how to run the school's ShopBot CNC setup, but don't like using artCAD, which came with the machine. I have both turbo and design cad for my own use but really haven't gotten started learning them yet. Do any of you have a preference, if so, why, and also, if you can recommend any tutorials or websites that might make the learning curve less of a cliff like apparition on my monitor, I'd be much abliged.
Any leads? TIA
John Moorhead
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

John...
I haven't used TurboCAD, so can't give you a comparison.
I've been using DesignCAD 2000 Professional for some of my ShopBot development and have been fairly happy with it. It can be used to make part drawings and create toolpaths.
I've found that it works well for me to save the drawing twice (once as part.dc and once as part_cut.dc) with the toolpath (only) in the second file. To go to the ShopBot, I export the toolpath as a DXF (ver. 14) and use the FC command in the ShopBot software to convert the exported DXF into an SBP file. I almost always need to edit the SBP file to insert some setup code; but that has more to do with how I use my 'Bot than anything else.
The F2 key in my old DesignCAD lets me add a line parallel to another line (or curve) and this capability makes toolpath creation a breeze. I like to use colors in my drawings; and I reserve red for tool paths.
I've noticed that DesignCAD has a function that allows separating each color into a separate layer - which should make it easier to extract the toolpath(s) than what I've described above (please don't ask why I'm not doing it that way.)
-- Morris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 May 2005 04:44:07 GMT, the inscrutable "John Moorhead"

This one doesn't Google so well, Grasshoppah.
http://www.mastercam.com/ Is this them? It looks like they have a $375 class for teaching instructors. ROAD TRIP! ;) http://www.mastercamedu.com/Instructors/Training/Default.asp
G'luck!
- The only reason I would take up exercising is || http://diversify.com so that I could hear heavy breathing again. || Programmed Websites
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He asks about Desgncad and Turbocad so you direct him to a class on Mastercam... Right. If someone wanted to become a Chevy mechanic, you would send them to a Toyota school, right?
spake:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

That would be useful for anyone interested in working on the car made in cooperation between Toyota and Chevrolet--the Toylet.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I use Turbocad. The place to go for information on it, tutorials, ect, is: http://forums.imsisoft.com/forums/index.cfm?CFApp 0 This is the most active forum of it's type I have seen and it is devoted to Turbocad.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"John Moorhead" wrote

Hi John,
My boss and I use TurboCad (designing in 3D). From that, we create the flat files for cutting each shape. My boss tends to lay out an entire sheet in TurboCad, which I then export into ArtCam as a .DXF file. From there, I convert the file into individual cut layers (one layer per depth on the cut part), combine and save as a .SBP file.
That's the overview ... here's the details.
Most of our work is in either HDPE (1"-2.5" thick) and 3/8" Polycarbonate (Lexan).
Starting out, we design our parts in TurboCad Professional. We've found that when you model the entire piece in 3D, you're less likely to be running into interferences. We've also learned that you HAVE to include some clearance in your parts, as the ShopBot will cut where you tell it to ... and without a couple of thousands clearance, you won't get your parts to line up right. This is the learning curve we climbed.
Once the individual parts are created, we create a 2D cut profile. This allows arranging parts on a 4x8 sheet to minimize waste. An added benefit is you control what paths are cut, and in what order (the cut order is in the order you create your 2D cut profile lines). This allows us to cut small parts without webbing or undercutting and having to use a knife or saw to separate the parts later.
Once the cut path is completed, I import it into Artcad as a .dxf file. Here I select each depth (which have been laid out as individual layers in TurboCad ... ie countersink holes are on the 0.500 layer for 1" thick material), select the appropriate mode (path follow, inside countour, outside countour, drill) and create a separate toolpath for each depth required. Note that if you have to change tools, you'll have to save the toolpaths in different files and call them separately (or join them together). Once all the toolpaths have been created, I save them as a .SBP file, which I then run with the ShopBot control program.
This process is the same whether I'm cutting a window out of a sheet of Lexan, making conveyer sprockets, or engraving nameplates (yes, I can engrave down to about 14 point with absolutely great results). Engraving is accomplished with an auxiliary vacuum holddown table that is bolted to the home corner of the 'bot. Vacuum is provided by the dust collector system (use the cleanup wand plugged into the end of the sub-table).
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.
Morris has probably put more material under his 'bot than I have ... you'd do yourself a favor by visiting his web site for ideas.
Regards,
Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 May 2005 04:44:07 GMT, "John Moorhead"
I own designCad, and I have trialled TurboCad. I dislike them both. I prefer DesgignCad, because I found it to be more intuitive and at the levels it worked well, it was a lot more "progressive" in the learning curve. The logic remained constant. I could actually come back and work the same problem from memory / intuition. Not so with TurboCad for me.
I find they work great for use of standard shapes, in both 2d and 3d, but if you want to "build" shapes by sort of sketching, they are very flaky, with Snaps, for instance, _showing_ a good snap, but being way off in one or the other dimension. Whenever I ask I get told it's because I don't understand the principles. This has _sometimes_ been right, but not often.
If you don't believe me, try working with Rhino demo and non-standard shapes. It's a whole new ballgame. However it costs more than Designcad or Turbo standard, and I have looked into its CNC etc capabilities at all.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Old Nick" <nsnsafemail#iinet.net.au> wrote in message wrote:

What you are discribing is a classic case of not understanding workplanes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hmmm...I have had such variable success, on the same view, with the same action on the same drawing, that I believe that "not understanding" needs addressing by the programme.
If the programme advertises "3d snap" and you _see_ a "snap" then there should have been a snap. The snap is not to the grid, but to the place snapped to, only way out in one plane, not visible to me as the User.
I have also had success with say, Cut and Paste in DesignCad, where a Drag and drop failed. Same object, same place to and from. Same action. Same angle. But drag and drop would fail every time. With Cut and Paste, I would go near the desired placement snap point, click and it would work perfectly. With drag, it was out every time, even though the snap looked exactly the same.
I kept being told I "did not understand" then, as well. But how come I could manage to Cut and Paste?
I repeat....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Old Nick" <nsnsafemail#iinet.net.au> wrote in message wrote:

Why don't you just send a letter to IMSI saying that they should change the program to suite your lack of understanding. They should be quite happy to dumb it down. The rest of their users don't really need all that capability anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I use Autodesk Inventor for all design work for both traditional and CNC machining. It can export the 2-d and 3-d models to DXF files and DWG's for manual work. All the data imput in Inventor involves drawing in 2d on a sketch plane and extruding, revolving, etc for 3d shapes. This is a truly 3d solid modelling program. In other words you'll have to draw the whole piece, not just the profile in 2d. But maybe you have to do this in TurboCAD and DesignCAD anyways? This software is a little pricy, but if you can afford it or maybe the school has or is willing to buy it, it would be worth it. Maybe the school has a metal machine shop that could make use of it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have not used Designcad but have used Turbocad Pro, Turbocad Solid modeler, AutoCAD, Inventor and a few others. The modeling method is pretty common to all. I agree that Inventor is a very good program and well worth the money. While Turbocad is fully capable of modeling anything that Inventor can, the extra features such as parametrics and sheet metal put Inventor way ahead for the professional. A bit over the top for the hobbyist though.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.