July 17, 2016 at 3:52 pm #14923
Well, I thought I had a working process. Now all of the sudden Inventor is not correctly recognizing holes in the Roller Motor Mount that I’m trying to process. No matter what I do, the fit mesh command will not generate a surface that is directly on top of the hole. Always bigger or smaller or offset from the real hole position. Don’t know what to do now.July 17, 2016 at 6:36 pm #14926
Bigger or smaller shouldn’t cause an issue constraining the hardware in solidworks. Just do a concentric mate and it will center them together. As long as you don’t get fancy and set limits parts can go straight through each other in solidworks assemblies.
Also, out of curiosity how did you get your solidworks license? Mine is a student license that I was given, but I don’t think I am going to renew it at $150 when it expires since inventor is free to students.July 17, 2016 at 6:43 pm #14927
I misspoke. I should have said that it will not make a concentric surface. Going to try some of the other parts tomorrow. Maybe it’s just an issue with that particular STL.
I’m fortunate to have Solidworks license through my job as a mechanical designer. I would pay for it if I didn’t. Solidworks is life. Lol.July 18, 2016 at 5:35 pm #14946
Just finished mesh fitting all the holes and circular features in Inventor and exporting STEP files. Got 90% of them. Some of the STL look like they are at lower rez and do not work, so I just converted them to mesh without mesh fit, and I will manually draw surfaces for mating in Solidworks. Now that I think about it I could have drawn them in Inventor, but already exported them all. Should have a working assembly soon, albeit the most interesting assembly I’ve ever put together. Lol. Still, learning a lot from this. Excited to share the results.July 22, 2016 at 2:02 pm #15108
I have all of the original version files modeled and can upload them if you guys want. I’ve made of few tweaks out of personal preference.
However, I would want the owner to give the go-ahead first. I don’t want to undermine all of his hard work.July 22, 2016 at 2:15 pm #15109
I don’t think that is a good idea for two reasons.
1-Your files might not be correct (and you have modified them).
2-These parts are fairly simple (No surfaces or other “advanced” techniques needed), if someone can’t model them they probably should not be modifying them. I always give out a critical dimensions to anyone who has asked.
I hope that doesn’t make me an a**hole, I just don’t want a bunch of “upgraded” parts showing up. This happened when I first released it and it was honestly a nightmare for me to deal with. Lots of tech support for poorly made things or awesome parts that just were not able to be printed. I am okay with any parts going to thingiverse in STL form but making it a little too easy to edit is probably not a good idea.July 22, 2016 at 4:58 pm #15113
I’ve had some success with assembling the STL files. I wouldn’t recommend it, as it’s incredibly tedious to mate everything up, and Solidworks does not like certain parts like the Roller F. Current assembly takes 7 minutes to open. Will probably start modeling parts. Should have in the first place. Will honor V’s wishes and not give out any modeled parts, but Im wondering what the rules would be for an assembly constructed of STL files? I’ve got it fully articulating, as well as having the entire thing resize on the fly as you adjust the rail lengths. Also making a table that will resize.
Anyway, this project is insane. One of the coolest assemblies I’ve put together. Can’t wait to order a kit. Here’s a rendering of my current assembly. Still needs some work.July 24, 2016 at 12:36 pm #15159
Awesome! I have been on a dirt biking trip the last few days and haven’t had internet at the cabin. I saw it on facebook when we were waiting at a restaraunt and couldn’t wait to see it on the forum.
I understand the reasoning behind not releasing the parts in easily modifiable cad formats. I scrolled through thingiverse and saw the “upgrade” parts. Few of which were actual upgrades. I will say that I think every spot where the smaller machine screws go could be a little better reinforced even if it was just a fillet or chamfer. The spots didn’t fit my nuts anyway. My machine was fine one day and the next day after a large temperature change (my machine is in the garage) a lot of those spots were cracked.July 25, 2016 at 6:19 am #15185
Over the weekend I modeled the Roller_F part in Solidworks. Assembly load time went from 7 minutes down to 15 seconds. So that was causing most of the issues. Starting to play around with different size formats and accessories.
I realize now I should have just brought the STL files directly into Solidworks and sketched all the holes using a 3 point circle, then extruded surfaces for mating directly along real axis. The Fusion 360 surfaces are all off by like .000000345 in angle from XYZ directions, so I ended up having to use a lot of mates like point to surfaces. Will probably slowly model the rest of the assembly to get rid of these issues.
The Roller_F part I did is extremely close to the original. Had to mess with the order of fillet construction, as well as use a lot of 3 point circles to find hole sizes and such. Still don’t have money to order the kit, but having fun playing with the assembly and dreaming. Also learning Fusion 360 while I wait.July 25, 2016 at 7:43 am #15188
Nice. Always a plus to get the loading time down. There are a few assemblies at work that I don’t like working with, especially since having an ssd doesnt help at all when everything is stored on a server.
As far as hole sizes and stuff goes it shouldn’t be a huge deal in the assembly if they are off as long as you don’t print parts from those files.
Playing around with Fusion will at least help you get use to how autodesk programs work, just in case that ever comes in handy. Though switching back and forth between solidworks and inventor isn’t that hard once you figure out the key differences in how they operate. I much prefer dimensioning as I go in Inventor rather than free handing the sketch and then dimensioning it. Though Solidworks 2015 is way better about not blowing up my sketches when I add the first dimension.
I absolutely love my MPCNC, but I can’t wait to upgrade (in like 20 years when I have the money) to something more solid that can do aluminum in a reasonable time. Something like the PCNC 440 comes to mind. That is a mill though, where this is a cnc router. Designed for two totally different types of projects.August 4, 2016 at 10:39 am #15634
I have still been messing around with the idea of how to work with STL files. Found a program by Autodesk called ReMake. It looks like it does some pretty advanced things when dealing with mesh files, and also has an option to output a file
constructed of quad surfaces
. Installed it at work, but I think there is something on my network that blocks something about the program, because it crashes right after it starts. Going to try freeing up enough space to install at home.
Fusion 360 is pretty cool. I think I’ve watched every video on Youtube that shows the CAM side of it. Pretty much ready to go besides needing to understand more about feeds and speeds and end mill selection.
What is your experience in making aluminum parts on the MPCNC? Do they come out ok, even though being slow?
Yeah the PCNC 440 is crazy. I wonder if there is any production items that could be done with the MPCNC to make enough to buy a PCNC.August 5, 2016 at 8:54 pm #15721
I’ve never done any metal on my MPCNC. Just soft wood, cutting boards (cheap source of plastic), and foam for practice/tests (wouldn’t want the z axis diving deep or 1 feed rate to be too fast).
I know about as much as I need to know for the CAM side of things in inventor hsm (same cam as fusion) but I need to learn more about feeds and speeds as well.
I’ve never installed any autodesk products on a business/school computer so I don’t know what it needs access too that it isn’t getting. Best bet is to try it at home or google what your problem is.August 12, 2016 at 5:57 am #16044
Finally got Autodesk ReMake to work. While it looks amazing for certain mesh processes, when I export a Quad OBJ file and export it into Fusion it does not give me square edges on the parts but rounds them off. No good.
Then I just realized we have new roller parts and my current STL assembly is now outdated and I need to fix it.
I’d give my left nut for at least a STEP assembly of each new version. Well, maybe $50 for lifetime access to real file downloads or something. (I need my nuts)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.