This battle was a heart breaker! Super happy for Great Nate of course but it was sad to see Ricardo go down. I still can't figure out why SW wasn't letting him do that revolve, has anyone been able to tell why that wasn't working for him?
Im all for a CAM battle. I've only done basic toolpaths but if that is something Phil wants to do, i think scoring based on "Machining time"...The fastest machine time wins?
I dont know about cam vs cam, in the cam area especially with fusion 360 the calculating (time) of the toolpaths are based on your computer setup, so i think they need to come up with a solution to keep the playingfield equalier
This may sound like I'm being critical, I'm not. Or not trying to be. But you have too much unnecessary information on this drawing. Some incorrectly dimensioned features. If you really want to test speed and accuracy, give only the information that can fully define the part. Remove all referenced dimensions. And all duplicate dimensions. Assume the part needs to be inspected so all players need to work off the same local part axis. My experience is almost 40 years building patterns for foundries and about 10 years as a cmm programmer/cad designer, using Catia v4 and v5. Keep having fun.
This battle was a heart breaker! Super happy for Great Nate of course but it was sad to see Ricardo go down. I still can't figure out why SW wasn't letting him do that revolve, has anyone been able to tell why that wasn't working for him?
I dont know exactly why it was blocking him, but I know I've had that crap happen (more than once) and its supper annoying!!
Im all for a CAM battle. I've only done basic toolpaths but if that is something Phil wants to do, i think scoring based on "Machining time"...The fastest machine time wins?
oh yes CAM vs CAM sounds awesome!
Aww yeah that's awesome!
I'll talk to Phil and see if we can do something!
I dont know about cam vs cam, in the cam area especially with fusion 360 the calculating (time) of the toolpaths are based on your computer setup, so i think they need to come up with a solution to keep the playingfield equalier
This may sound like I'm being critical, I'm not. Or not trying to be. But you have too much unnecessary information on this drawing. Some incorrectly dimensioned features. If you really want to test speed and accuracy, give only the information that can fully define the part. Remove all referenced dimensions. And all duplicate dimensions. Assume the part needs to be inspected so all players need to work off the same local part axis. My experience is almost 40 years building patterns for foundries and about 10 years as a cmm programmer/cad designer, using Catia v4 and v5. Keep having fun.
Thanks Roscoe - Welcome to the community and glad you're enjoying the channel!