RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: G-code---for the new millenium

Ballendo, in his unsubtle wisdom, promptly suggested :

>Guy,

>Not so fast...

Snip/

>Do yourself a favor and try a search on yahoo of:

APT Automatically Programmed Tool CNC

>THEN, see if you're back to square one...

Thanks again Ballendo. Will do.

Guy


-----Original Message-----
From: ballendo [mailto:ballendo@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:35 AM
To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: G-code---for the new millenium


Guy,

Not so fast...

Fred SELLS CAD/CAM programs! And is definitely NOT unbiased(based on
posts). There are other links that "could have been used" that do not
cast APT in such a poor light.

Do yourself a favor and try a search on yahoo of:
APT Automatically Programmed Tool CNC

THEN, see if you're back to square one...

Fred described the way it HAS been used. I thought you were looking
for the way(s) it COULD be used? (Of course if you just accept it as
60's technology, and not as a starting point for the new gcode your
first message asked for...)

Since you originally used assembly mnemonics in your question, you
may find that APT works like you think. To say that it is obsolete is
only to say that we now have other ways of doing SIMILAR things,
which many consider better.

We have "C++". Is assembly obsolete? How about BASIC?

Did Visual C++ make C more accessible? How about creating visual APT?
Waht about the fact that APT is still used in the most complex types
of machining? Obsolete?

Hope this helps.

Ballendo

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Guy Sirois" <guys@w...> wrote:
>
> Woops ! Back to square one.
>
> Thanks for the warning Fred.
>
> Guy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imserv1 [mailto:imserv@v...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y...
> Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: G-code---for the new millenium
>
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Guy Sirois" <guys@w...> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to thank everybody who commented on my weird idea.
It
> is very
> > instructive to read people's opinions, which are often based on
> experience
> > and knowledge.
> >
> > I will try to learn something about this APT language, because I
> think it
> > will become very popular, sooner or later.
> >
>
> It was very popular before the advent of graphical interfaces. APT
> relies on the user having a VERY good understanding of math and
> formulae manipulation of geometry. It is very powerful to an
> educated and trained user, but extremely difficult to one with only
a
> rudimentary knowledge of machine tool geometries. There is very
> little visual feedback to the user to see what he has programmed.
>
> It has been mostly replaced today by Cad-Cam systems that allow the
> user to draw the shapes and develop G-code directly from the
drawing.
>
> The output from an APT system is a CL file which must be translated
> into G-code to work on nearly any controller, modern or ancient.
The
> translation is called post-processing. The APT is free but the
post
> processors usually are quite pricey. Many of the expensive Cad-Cam
> systems in use today still have an intermediary step in which they
> generate a CL file that is post-processed by the same postprocessor
> that would be used for an APT program.
>
> APT is a nearly obsolete technology today and has little practical
> use as compared to Cad Cam except for extremely complex 5 axis
> machining, which seems to be the primary remaining application of
APT.
> (very expensive)
>
> Best Regards, Fred Smith- IMService
>