RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Visual Mill vs. MACH1

Great question! Short answer - I don't know. Is Visual Mill 3.0 (Free
version) sufficient for the CAM function on a 3 axis Bridgeport? I'd like
to keep the software cost as low as possible until I get familiar with what
this beast will do.

I have a couple of questions:

1) The steppers were held to their brackets with bolts going through
neoprene bushings and then direct connected to the screw shafts. Does this
provide enough flexibility or should I change to flexible shaft couplings?

2) Now that I'm embarked on a new hobby, I have an old Logan 9" lathe
(1940's vintage with manually changeable gears). Is it worthwhile (or even
possible) to convert this to CNC?

Long Form:

I have a hobby where I collect and rebuild model stationary steam engines.
I was missing a slide valve for one, and I butchered a replacement by using
a lathe. I finally broke down and decided to by myself a HF mini milling
machine as a present. I then got a bright idea and bartered some two year
old (but still very usable) computer equipment to a school and got the 2J
Bridgeport I'm working on as well as a J head unit which was fitted with
steppers, which I converted back to manual (and which I will probably sell
on E-Bay). I figured this was a better deal than buying the small unit.
The hobby interest has now transferred from steam engines to getting this
beast to work. The electronics are pretty much finished (except for the
limit switches) and now I'm looking at software. What will I use this for
once its running? I really haven't thought it out, but I'm open to (polite)
suggestions.

Regards,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Campbell [mailto:bob@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:35 PM
To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Visual Mill vs. MACH1


Jeff,

First of all, what type of parts are you going to machine? I like to
separate the parts into two groups. The first being the mechanical part that
you would make when building a machine. The second group would be the
artistic parts which could include a large group of designs.

AutoDesk Inventor would be fine if you are making parts for a machine.

Rhino3D would be my choice if you are starting out and want to go through
the learning process. Rhino will let you create almost anything.

You would still need a program like VisualMill (cam only) to create your
tool paths. After that you would need Mach1 to (read your G code) control
your mill..

Bob Campbell

----- Original Message -----
From: "washcomp" <jeff@...>
To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:15 PM
Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Visual Mill vs. MACH1


> I'm a little confused by the type of software that I should be looking
> at for the Bridgeport I'm converting. Based on some of the
> discussions on the group, I downloaded the demo versions of Visual
> Mill and MACH1. They seem to be a couple of orders of magnitude
> different in complexity and capability. Both seem to have
> capabilities the other doesn't. I'd like to work in Windows. I also
> have access to AutoDesk Mechanical Desktop amnd AutoDesk Inventor.
> Would these packages be of use? (No point in learning them if they
> are not as good as some other solution).
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>