Re: digitizer probe and software

Hi Fred,

The "hollow" object example would be interesting to try. As long as
StlTrans allows some point variation. When MaxNC generates points,
besides the "extra" points, the coordinates are not simple multiples of
the specified "scan" size. My first guess was that they were "machine
coordinates", I.E., the closest the hardware can get to the commanded
position. For example, these are produced with 0.020 spacing:

X0.0000Z-0.1446
X0.0195Z-0.1439
X0.0390Z-0.1439
X0.0585Z-0.1436
X0.0780Z-0.1439
X0.0975Z-0.1437
X0.1170Z-0.1436
X0.1365Z-0.1436
X0.1560Z-0.1436

BUT, .020 is an even multiple of .000125 (Sherline CNC), so that doesn't
explain it. Hopefully, these aren't too far "off the grid".

Sounds like a good deal on the XP. Looks like I've got another year to
wait before I get a new (free?) machine.

Alan KM6VV


Fred Smith wrote:

>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Alan Marconett KM6VV <KM6VV@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> > I looked at the Picza, nice machine! Thanks for the comments and
> > explanations.
> >
> > On the XYZ's the Vector CAD/CAM 9.3 can generate; Does that assume
> that
> > the DXF data is EVENLY spaced (on "the grid")? a MaxNC digitizer
> scan
> > will have fairly even spacing if the depth remains the same, but
> will
> > add more "sample points" if it finds an edge. Great for "copy",
> might
> > be hard to convert to XYZ?
>
> Vector does not care about the spacing, just that they are planar. X-
> Z plane for instance if you scan along the X axis and step over in Y
>
> StlTrans needs equal number of points in rows and columns, with the
> actual values allowed to vary. I do not know if there are any limits
> on the variation that is allowed from point to point, but would
> assume that you could theoretically feed it the coordinates of a
> hollow object and it would be able to create the inside enclosed
> volume, as well as a shell.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Fred Smith
> IMService
>
> PS the XP was because so many people wanted to know if the new Vector
> worked. I went with the 1.4 GHZ because it was only about $100 more
> expensive than the slowest AMD available, a 900 mhz. Still only
> about $700 total.