Is it possible to program with just 3D model.

Hi all,

I am bit curious to know about below part.

Is it possible to program a excution with just 3D model and without seeing the actual job.

Or

Is it mandatory to see actual job before programming it or can program it with help of just the 3D model of the job .

Of course, just program it up. You actually don't need to make chips or a part either.

R

PrawinArumugam said:

Hi all,

I am bit curious to know about below part.

Is it possible to program a excution with just 3D model and without seeing the actual job.

Or

Is it mandatory to see actual job before programming it or can program it with help of just the 3D model of the job .

Click to expand...

Depends on what the part is. If it is just a fancy soap dish, then yeah, have at it. But if it's got dimensions that matter because other parts have to fit with it, then it would be risky without an accompanying drawing with some tolerance information on it.

Of course. That's the way the industry is going! Look up MBD (model base definition)...what could go wrong...oh you wanted a 16uin finish there and .0005" profile tolerance...oops.

PrawinArumugam said:

Hi all,

I am bit curious to know about below part.

Is it possible to program a excution with just 3D model and without seeing the actual job.

Or

Is it mandatory to see actual job before programming it or can program it with help of just the 3D model of the job .

Click to expand...

^^^ Can someone translate this for me ? I don't get it / understand what's being asked / framed here ?

I'm like … OK how does a 3d model program itself to make G-code / vectoral (other description.)* ?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* I got nothing...

Triaged said:

Of course. That's the way the industry is going! Look up MBD (model base definition)...what could go wrong...oh you wanted a 16uin finish there and .0005" profile tolerance...oops.

Click to expand...

On the other hand a lot CAD models have a lot of hidden errors and mistakes...

I'm kinda interested whether products like Hypermill BUT Hypermill CAD make for cleaner more direct and sensible and accurate generation of intended tool paths before going to CAM, i.e. geometry and surfaces that relate much more closely to real world "Cutting of metal" an' what you're gonna get ? [All things considered for actual machining of challenging geometries.].

cameraman said:

On the other hand a lot CAD models have a lot of hidden errors and mistakes...

.....

Click to expand...

IME this is mainly related to the knowledge and skill of who made the model, not so much the CAD used.

Oh man, lol. Lots of love. And laugh out loud. They say no question is a bad question. But in some cases. Please put some thought into the question. Even a 3D printer, that most work from a 3D rendering use a post processed format of one form or the other. We in the industry don't have Jarvis to make our parts yet. And the Star Trek replicators are only in the 3D printer phase of the program, thus far in history.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Vancbiker said:

IME this is mainly related to the knowledge and skill of who made the model, not so much the CAD used.

Click to expand...

Agreed but sometimes a parametric Tree and paradigm can force certain things to happen that go "Undetected" by the user or modeler and sometimes the said modeler does not have enough mathematical tools at their disposal to check the rigor of what they have built... In terms of reference points and intended (parametric geometry).

Things get more complex when you have mixed parametric and explicit geometries from different sources munged together into one model/ complex geometric description.


Problem is when "Peeps" that are supposed to be supporting products like (for example) SOLIDWORKS, rarely do they teach best or good practice to not create models that have bastardized geometries from munging together essentially a "Parametric" house of cards with cumulative errors and assumptions... (things are getting better in terms of education and support on that front but has taken them a long time to get to that realization.). Not so sure that that many designers these days are that cognizant of where every reference point and surface is coming from in reference to itself and other datums. AND ultimately how a machine (in a machining process) will execute on that ?


Tricky spectrum between engineering to design engineering to pure "free base" design that has to function somehow.


As a counter to that some of the approaches offered by an intermediate step provided by a set of CAD operations that are machining and process specific seem really helpful / hopeful ? Sperate CAD environment specific to the CAM system , but imports from Design Engineering platforms like Solid works or Autodesk etc.


Deformation | hyperCAD-S CAD software | OPEN MIND

This ^^^ caught my eye* as a separate useful environment where you can make important and useful global corrections for MACHINING … That would be seriously awful to execute / difficult in original CAD environment (maybe with the exception of NX, (not going there lol). But a separate CAD interface (and set of models) for very specific machining processes would seem to be the way to go (time willing).

E.G. ---> In the link above: Maybe a Piece of stock stress relives and distorts after initial machining (major material removal from complex cavities) ... And may further distort over a period of weeks where somehow one has to effect a geometric counter distortion in terms of material removal so that the geometries "Come right" after stress relief/ natural movement of the material in three dimensions from asymmetrically freeing locked in stresses in the material.

______________________________________________________________________________

* Not a hyperMill shill / no affiliation

HuFlungDung said:

Depends on what the part is. If it is just a fancy soap dish, then yeah, have at it. But if it's got dimensions that matter because other parts have to fit with it, then it would be risky without an accompanying drawing with some tolerance information on it.

Click to expand...

Ditto this. If it has critical features it needs an approprately toleranced print. If everything is +/- .005 than that needs to be on the purchase order or documented from the customer.

I have programmed more than a few parts off of just a 3D model, usually it involved a fair bit of running back and forth to the engineer to clear up dimensions and tolerances. That said, I usually had to recreate the model in it's entirety to get the CAM software to recognize the features I wanted. Not all CAM and CAD packages are compatible.

bigjon61 said:

Ditto this. If it has critical features it needs an approprately toleranced print. If everything is +/- .005 than that needs to be on the purchase order or documented from the customer.

Click to expand...

I agree with you and Huflungdung … But for more complex geometries (compound curves) and tilted reference planes that the 3d model / CAD description is more helpful than 2d paper prints... For most "peeps" these days or a mountain projected planes and cross sections on paper.


Tricky.


If there's a 3d model there has to be some sort of reason why 3d models are being used in the first place (maybe).

Is it possible to program a excution with just 3D model and without seeing the actual job.

Click to expand...

I'm still thinking about what this means. As in what is the difference between a "3D Model" and "the actual job". In the context of the question, is he asking if he can program it without seeing the PO? The work order? Or what? Does he want a sample part, or an assembly?

R

I've been using HSM Express with Solidworks for a while, and it's pretty much what the OP is asking about. Make the parts as a 3d model, and click the CAM tab to start making tool paths. It isn't as easy as 3d printer software where you can just drag and drop the 3d model into the program and it immediately generates the entire print path from preset parameters.

I think it wouldn't be too difficult for a CAM program to have an "auto-program" button that analyzes the part features and then creates a series of tool paths and makes assumptions about stock size and workholding. CAM that could do this would save 80% of my programming time. I'm well aware of all the little details that would need to be changed manually by the machinist, to account for things like stock warping and grip surfaces. But having a computer do the majority of the programming for us is feasible and would be great.

Generic Default said:

I've been using HSM Express with Solidworks for a while, and it's pretty much what the OP is asking about. Make the parts as a 3d model, and click the CAM tab to start making tool paths. It isn't as easy as 3d printer software where you can just drag and drop the 3d model into the program and it immediately generates the entire print path from preset parameters.

I think it wouldn't be too difficult for a CAM program to have an "auto-program" button that analyzes the part features and then creates a series of tool paths and makes assumptions about stock size and workholding. CAM that could do this would save 80% of my programming time. I'm well aware of all the little details that would need to be changed manually by the machinist, to account for things like stock warping and grip surfaces. But having a computer do the majority of the programming for us is feasible and would be great.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is what Op is asking ?

SolidCAM is built directly into solid works and later MasterCam did the same thing.

BUT the 3d geometry has to be analyzed mathematically using actual software to do that to generate various types of tool paths. [You know the CAM bit ;-) ].

Some 'Peeps" here would take a 3d cad model and extract various profile geometries and extract and build by hand tool paths taking into account tool geometry and desired cutting / tool path strategies... In some cases using a g-code (based) editor/ hacked text editor + (knowledge of specific machine and M codes etc.).

And then there are controls that can accept certain 3d file formats (like the HURCO control / newish feature) but there's still software that "Munches" on the model and mathematically analyses the surfaces to create explicit tool paths and then there's the interaction between user and model too, (i.e. an interface) to help determine what user intends / wants ?

Other techniques that are more directly geometry based would be use of Nurbs (like on the Okuma control) or direct vector methods used on 5 axis Fanuc control so the posted code is more portable between different types of machine and even different layouts of machines...


Sounds like what OP is asking is IS there a way to 'Hack" a 3d model directly to spew out G-code that a machine would understand ?

Maybe ?

OP's title " Is it possible to program just using 3D model ?"

I'm scratching my head 'cuz a 3d model doesn't do anything on it's own … It's a geometric description converted to a binary or ascii format in a file ? And if it's parametric it's at least one level of abstraction beyond that and is usually ultra proprietary. I.e. needs software to sensibly "Unpack" and correctly interpret the geometric / conditional / mathematical / parametric descriptions.

To attempt to answer Op's question.

Basically … is there a direct mathematical transformation of a "3d" model into G-code (that a machine would understand ) ?

I think the answer is no.

Why?

'Cuz a toolpath is a description of how a tool needs to move through time and space with an intended strategy based on real world machining.

The middle ground on that would be vectorial and Nurbs based descriptions but those still require one to analyze geometry in some way. (Usually complex geometries).

THEN there are folks that use / hack CAD software to model points and vectors and G-code parameters using CAD. 3d lines in space ? And some might have a hack to excel for formatting such data and spit it out in a G-code / program formatted structure with proper headers and footer and machine data. [I know I'm gonna regret that "Beetlejuice" "Beetlejuice" "Excel" part.].

Seems there are many "Roads to Rome" … Without clarification from OP ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


I believe… (my vague interpretation) that Op's question (@PrawinArumugam) IS how do you folks generate tool paths when you don't have a CAM system but only CAD / access to 3d model of a given part ?


I think OP is fishing for a hack that can handle more complexity than straight up "Finger Cam ? " (maybe) . And different practical approaches to skin that cat ?

I must be the only one not seeing this "below part".

Brent

yardbird said:

I must be the only one not seeing this "below part".

Brent

Click to expand...

Nope I don't think so. We're just forgiving a Noob.

Maybe he is asking if he should (not can) program a part from a Model before he gets the job????

R

Generic Default said:

.....I think it wouldn't be too difficult for a CAM program to have an "auto-program" button that analyzes the part features and then creates a series of tool paths and makes assumptions about stock size and workholding. ......

Click to expand...

NX has had that capability for quite some time. They call it Feature Based Machining. I'm not sure how far it has progressed not much of the details. The shop I retired from ~6 years ago was working on their implementation of it when I retired.

Vancbiker said:

NX has had that capability for quite some time. They call it Feature Based Machining. I'm not sure how far it has progressed not much of the details. The shop I retired from ~6 years ago was working on their implementation of it when I retired.

Click to expand...

I think alot of cam softwares have this now, or have had, just a matter of implementation. Mastercam has it, but it is worthless IMO, unless you spend alot of time setting it up. If they ever make one that reads my mind, let me know I will be on board!