What's new
What's new

Brother's conversational

laurent12100

Aluminum
Joined
Sep 7, 2023
Good evening,


I'm curious to see what Brother's conversational looks like, some people say it's good. but strangely I can't find any video of it, why?

thanks
 
I don't know how you can build a successful machine operation based on conversational. And I have a customer who uses it on a multiple machines with 4/5th tilting table on the machines. It just doesn't allow for flexibility. Get Fusion and learn that.
 
I don't know how you can build a successful machine operation based on conversational. And I have a customer who uses it on a multiple machines with 4/5th tilting table on the machines. It just doesn't allow for flexibility. Get Fusion and learn that.
I'm just curious,

I find Mazatrol very nice to use when You know how use it, but it's depend of your work..

I don't know fusion and never really use CAM on machine, (I will try soon when I fine free time)

In mazatrol I like, edit just 1 thing and restart just where I want,

it seems more complicated to me with fao, probably because I'm not familiar with the process.

I have 2 very old machines (mazak AJV M32 and cazeneuve NUM750) and i work alone

having to go to the computer, modify, send the program back to the machine, look for the line to start up
doesn't seem easy to me
 
Unfortunately with the Brother it's massively easier to edit on the computer... in fact I don't even edit the tool table on the machine itself...

I think you are expecting something different from the conversational on the Brother? Perhaps something visual? It's really just a (slightly) higher level g-code
 
Unfortunately with the Brother it's massively easier to edit on the computer... in fact I don't even edit the tool table on the machine itself...

I think you are expecting something different from the conversational on the Brother? Perhaps something visual? It's really just a (slightly) higher level g-code
ok, maybe like haas if I remember ?

To edit the tool table, do you have a specific program on your computer?
 
I'm just curious,

I find Mazatrol very nice to use when You know how use it, but it's depend of your work..

I don't know fusion and never really use CAM on machine, (I will try soon when I fine free time)

In mazatrol I like, edit just 1 thing and restart just where I want,

it seems more complicated to me with fao, probably because I'm not familiar with the process.

I have 2 very old machines (mazak AJV M32 and cazeneuve NUM750) and i work alone

having to go to the computer, modify, send the program back to the machine, look for the line to start up
doesn't seem easy to me
Not sure why you would "have to go back to the computer"
I restart by line # frequently. Never used conversational on my speedio. CAM it, drag and drop to the machine, and go. I have both fusion and InvetorCAM, that are very similar, but never touch fusion as it can't handle large assemblies. Also has an post processor that is easy to edit for specific needs. I also store templates for operations and material specific speeds/feeds. I do large variety of fast turn/low quantity projects. Can't imagine anything faster. Sure, there is a learning curve with CAD/CAM. But that's the same for every process. Would probably take me a long time to learn coversational.

Horses for courses. If it makes money, your winning either way.
 
Not sure why you would "have to go back to the computer"
I restart by line # frequently. Never used conversational on my speedio. CAM it, drag and drop to the machine, and go. I have both fusion and InvetorCAM, that are very similar, but never touch fusion as it can't handle large assemblies. Also has an post processor that is easy to edit for specific needs. I also store templates for operations and material specific speeds/feeds. I do large variety of fast turn/low quantity projects. Can't imagine anything faster. Sure, there is a learning curve with CAD/CAM. But that's the same for every process. Would probably take me a long time to learn coversational.

Horses for courses. If it makes money, your winning either way.
I have an old machine with rs232 so I need send program

It would be interesting to see who is using the conversational side of Mazatrol to do mill work without the support of offline programming. Are you? 3 axis, 4 axis or 5 axis?

in the past I learn mazatrol (turning + milling) on integrex with second spindle I work 1 years in this compagny and program only in mazatrol , each operator program on her machine,

now I have a shop with an old mazak (3+1 axes) I program with mazatrol (but I will learn fusion) the sad things is to send program with rs232, and the machine have small memory
 
Spent the last 5-1/2 years at a job shop that only uses Mazatrol. We have turret lathes with Milling and Y axis, a few verticals, two Horizontals and a Variaxis true 5 axis. We do all our programming on the floor. Almost all of our customer base cannot provide 3D models for their parts. Mostly they provide prints and sometimes they just supply a part. I believe this is why we have these customers. Our quote would only be the programming and machining where as a CAM shop would have to draw the parts first. You would think it be a niche market but we have about 20 full time guys in machine shop and stay pretty busy. There are a lot of parts you can make without the need for CAM so long as they are engineered with it in mind. Seems like a lot of times customers aren't informed that the feature you have to 3D contour with CAM software is costing them big bucks in run time and if you have a 4 or 5 axis machine to just index and mill a proper plane a lot of time can be saved. So yeah, we aren't getting the most out of our machines because we never cut with a rotational axis but how many parts truly need that?
 
My first experience with CNC was using conversational programming on knee mills. Luckily I was being paid by the hour and not the job....

Never used Mazatrol, of the several I did use Centroid was probably the best, but absolutely no way I'd ever go back. For milling CAM of any species is light-years better.

There's maybe a narrow window of lathe work that conversational could be an advantage, where it's more involved than just canned cycles and not organic enough to need CAM. Maybe.
 
It would be interesting to see who is using the conversational side of Mazatrol to do mill work without the support of offline programming. Are you? 3 axis, 4 axis or 5 axis?
Maybe for basic stuff like hole patterns or basic pocket shapes.
 
Maybe for basic stuff like hole patterns or basic pocket shapes.
Like I stated, I have a customer with three Brother S series machines and tilting 4/5 tables on them using the Brother conversational control. Why? Because they started using Brothers in the 1980's and continued with them. The parts are essentially boxes, so no contouring even in three axis. As a starting point, it is easy to get support for fusion. The cost is economical even for a one man shop.
 
It would be interesting to see who is using the conversational side of Mazatrol to do mill work without the support of offline programming. Are you? 3 axis, 4 axis or 5 axis?
If your ever in NE Ohio I can take you by the tool room I used to work at. It's been awhile so I can't swear to it, but when I was there we programmed all but the most complex 3d parts at the control. The vast majority of the machines were mazak. That work included 3d work done on a 4th that was hard milling to take some of the demand off the 5 axis.

11/10 days that I leave the shop pissed it's because of Fusion. I just blew up a $60 endmill because Fusion changed a tool path, a tool path that has been posted 30+ times in the course of this job, that 30+ times has not gone anywhere near the bolt head. But, change the cpt on a completely different tool, in a completely different tool path, in a DIFFERENT SETUP and it seems like a good time to change the tool path.

Yesterday one of the roughing operations ran one way. All day. Posted the program numerous times making small improvements. Never changed. Today, that rougher runs a completely different tool path. Why? I haven't changed any settings, haven't changed the tool?

There are days I wish I had a Mazak again, not because of the Brother. I absolutely love my Brother. Fusion makes me want to go play in traffic on a 4 lane highway at rush hour.

I don't recommend Fusion to anyone.

in fact I don't even edit the tool table on the machine itself...
How do you not do that?
 
If your ever in NE Ohio I can take you by the tool room I used to work at. It's been awhile so I can't swear to it, but when I was there we programmed all but the most complex 3d parts at the control. The vast majority of the machines were mazak. That work included 3d work done on a 4th that was hard milling to take some of the demand off the 5 axis.

11/10 days that I leave the shop pissed it's because of Fusion. I just blew up a $60 endmill because Fusion changed a tool path, a tool path that has been posted 30+ times in the course of this job, that 30+ times has not gone anywhere near the bolt head. But, change the cpt on a completely different tool, in a completely different tool path, in a DIFFERENT SETUP and it seems like a good time to change the tool path.

Yesterday one of the roughing operations ran one way. All day. Posted the program numerous times making small improvements. Never changed. Today, that rougher runs a completely different tool path. Why? I haven't changed any settings, haven't changed the tool?

There are days I wish I had a Mazak again, not because of the Brother. I absolutely love my Brother. Fusion makes me want to go play in traffic on a 4 lane highway at rush hour.

I don't recommend Fusion to anyone.


How do you not do that?
ConFusion360 is the software we suffer through with the justification that we don't have to pay $15k for MasterCAM and $6k for Solidworks. It's design is ok, it's sheet metal is weak but functional, it's assemblies are absolutely horrendous, it's CAM works pretty well - but is always a hazard and I have to do 100% verification on every toolpath it creates. One great example is that - and I don't know if they've changed this - if you program to drill and tap a hole, the tap will go 100% to the bottom of the hole and break, every time, if you don't modify the tap cycle. What a wonderful concept. But, it didn't cost me $20+k plus big annual fees, and I can do everything in one software. It is the least bad solution.
 
How do you not do that?

Everything you do on the machine control is then stored into one of the files that you can access via FTP (or brothercomm). So what I do is download the tool table, edit in vscode and re-upload. Much easier than pushing buttons on the control. However, tip: at least for me, uploading the tool table (TOOLNM1) also blanks out the ATC, so download that and reupload it after: (ATCTL)

I've written a wrapper for the communication API, but not done much with it yet. Longer term goal is to have a nice GUI for the control using say an ipad magnet'ed to the machine side.
 
One great example is that - and I don't know if they've changed this - if you program to drill and tap a hole, the tap will go 100% to the bottom of the hole and break, every time, if you don't modify the tap cycle. What a wonderful concept. But, it didn't cost me $20+k plus big annual fees, and I can do everything in one software. It is the least bad solution.

I don't see this, or at least I use it differently? However, I agree some care is needed

When defining a hole, you can set it to be all thread, or to have an unthreaded section below.

Then when you define your drill, tap and chamfer operations you need a lot of care to choose the correct hole definition. One will be smaller diameter than the other. Choose the one with the unthreaded section for drilling (and likely choose "drill tip through" option). Then choose the threads only section for the tap op. Because they are different diameters you can still use "select same diameter holes")

However, if you don't have a modelled hole like this, then I either:
a) Select "drill tip through" and then choose an amount of extra height that gives me safety for the tap op
or
b) On the tap op, set the height to be a safe distance from the bottom of the hole

I don't really see how Fusion could do either of these without you giving it extra info (at the end of the day it doesn't know that a tap op needs to be relieved), so you have to give it some hints. Generally I use b) above, so drill out the hole as per the print and then run the tap to a safe distance above the hole bottom (and usually I'm using CTS drills, so I don't usually have to worry about debris in the hole)
 








 
Back
Top