What's new
What's new

Is there a CAM for lathe that doesn't suck?

Gibbscam has always had a great lathe side. including millturn, multiple spindles and multiple turrets. It is updated yearly and has tons of strange feature to boot it has voluturn for adaptive paths and support for custom drill cycles. Pinch turning. thread whirling. etc. not cheap but way more powerful than IGF or Mazatrol. IMO.
 
At the risk of being insulting...most of your lathes can't do much :). By that I mean, you can profile outside and inside, groove, part off and drill on centerline - that's about it. So maybe I can see where you might consider lathe in Fusion 'too simple'. But, then again, you're not doing anything particularly taxing with respect to lathe work.
I understand that most of the lathes I work on are simple 2 axis lathes, but actually 6 of those 7 run the same parts all day for years and years. No program changes. Also the parts are quite large (suspension arms for Jeeps) so it isn't something that can be easily automated.

Maybe a robot loader in the future.

But the millturn machines are doing RD work for some new products that are much more interesting. I'm doing programming for that and I am just so frustrated with Camworks.

Camworks actually has really good feature recognition built in, but to me it's useless. I don't want to automate my programming, I just want a intuitive and quick way to spit out the code I want.

And I don't need useless features like machine simulation, etc. I am perfectly capable of operating the machines without running tools into the chuck.
 
And I don't need useless features like machine simulation
There's a reason that Vericut and other 3rd part simulation software is so expensive, it's because it works.
The simulation stuff that comes with Mastercam is what I use and it does help with holder collision and stuff like that at times. But it's nowhere near as powerful as the "real" simulation programs.
 
There's a reason that Vericut and other 3rd part simulation software is so expensive, it's because it works.
The simulation stuff that comes with Mastercam is what I use and it does help with holder collision and stuff like that at times. But it's nowhere near as powerful as the "real" simulation programs.

Ok, I admit that machine simulation is useful for certain people who are doing work with very tight clearances, but for 99% of people there really isn't any need. Just use common sense and don't crush your machine.
 
We use Esprit here. I am on and off getting training on it. It has been the hardest software to wrap my head around. I'm a mill guy so this has been a challenge to learn both the lathe and software.

The only plus I see with this program is that it spits out good code for our Okuma LB3000EXII with a sub spindle.
 
Ok, I admit that machine simulation is useful for certain people who are doing work with very tight clearances, but for 99% of people there really isn't any need. Just use common sense and don't crush your machine.
You may want to take a look at EZ Cam lathe & mill . I have never used it or have any affiliation, but I do know a shop that uses it for millwork. This software flies under the radar but looks relatively easy to use.
 
Ok, I admit that machine simulation is useful for certain people who are doing work with very tight clearances, but for 99% of people there really isn't any need. Just use common sense and don't crush your machine.

Evidently you've never called up the wrong tool, or picked the wrong geometry while programming

I program in an old version of Surfcam, I always use the simulator, it doesn't show the machine geometry or vises etc, but it does show when there's an errant toolpath that is incorrect, or the wrong size drill etc etc. The crashes I do get generally are when I don't run the simulator, or I'm in the "I'm so good and pretty I never mistakes"
 
You may want to take a look at EZ Cam lathe & mill . I have never used it or have any affiliation, but I do know a shop that uses it for millwork. This software flies under the radar but looks relatively easy to use.
Thanks. This looks very interesting, actually. I am going to try the demo when I have some time.
 
Our parts have a lot of milling and some of which is 3D chamfers/etc. It would nearly impossible to program without CAM. That being said a big value of good CAM is in the time it saves you in proving out new parts. Knowing you have run it through simulation and know your tool clearances are good saves a lot of time. Also know you have programmed all features to size saves time as well. We have plenty of production parts needing to be cut so more time spent offline that saves machine setup and first part prove out is well worth it.
 
Our parts have a lot of milling and some of which is 3D chamfers/etc. It would nearly impossible to program without CAM. That being said a big value of good CAM is in the time it saves you in proving out new parts. Knowing you have run it through simulation and know your tool clearances are good saves a lot of time. Also know you have programmed all features to size saves time as well. We have plenty of production parts needing to be cut so more time spent offline that saves machine setup and first part prove out is well worth it.
What @YoDoug said right here
Ok, I admit that machine simulation is useful for certain people who are doing work with very tight clearances, but for 99% of people there really isn't any need. Just use common sense and don't crush your machine.
It's not just common sense, or for people doing work with very tight tolerances, unless maybe you are programming the most basic simple parts ever, I've verified tool holder clearance within .005" of walls while surfacing or reaching 4-6" + inches on a pocket. Can it be done without verification, sure, but why not utilize the tools provided to almost guarantee you won't rub a holder or tool shank. Not to mention to be able to see all features have been machined to size, I don't know how many times I've had corner radius' not called out on the print and programmed using a 1/2" tool and simulated to find out the radius is .198" or something odd and have to go back in with an additional tool.
 
I've verified tool holder clearance within .005" of walls while surfacing or reaching 4-6" + inches on a pocket. Can it be done without verification, sure, but why not utilize the tools provided to almost guarantee you won't rub a holder or tool shank.

Unless my reading has gone to shit, the title is "lathe" .... not that verify can't be helpful for turning, too, but maybe not as big a deal on two-axis. Live tools, maybe more useful.

On a 2 ax lathe if I had it I'd probly run it but wouldn't cry if I didn't.
 
Unless my reading has gone to shit, the title is "lathe" .... not that verify can't be helpful for turning, too, but maybe not as big a deal on two-axis. Live tools, maybe more useful.

On a 2 ax lathe if I had it I'd probly run it but wouldn't cry if I didn't.
A lot of the 2ax turned parts I have done in the past had tiny clearances too, often with custom made tools with clearances built in. The ability to design the tool to the part in cad then simulate clearances in cam can be just as much of a life saver for turned parts as it is with milled parts. Send the model off to sandvik or horn or whoever else and get the tool made, makes life easy.

Talking about small turned features down at the bottom of extreme deep tapered bores and stuff like that. Also parts that are not cylindrical to start with, or have already been milled to some weird shape and need some features turned. Being able to simulate collision clearances against non-cylindrical part geometry on stuff like that is a huge boon.

Just depends on the kind of work you do.
 
Ok, I admit that machine simulation is useful for certain people who are doing work with very tight clearances, but for 99% of people there really isn't any need. Just use common sense and don't crush your machine.
Have you ever worked around other actual human beings before?
 
Unless my reading has gone to shit, the title is "lathe" .... not that verify can't be helpful for turning, too, but maybe not as big a deal on two-axis. Live tools, maybe more useful.

On a 2 ax lathe if I had it I'd probly run it but wouldn't cry if I didn't.
I was adding to a previous comment you must have missed.

But yea, if you are turning parts that could be ran easily on a manual lathe, you probably don't need CAM or simulation at all.
 








 
Back
Top