GeneratriX wrote:
Well, I need to reckon I'm completely lost (seriously) and never heared about that! ...could you point me to some useful URL to start to grasp a bit the concept? (APT related, you know)
APT stands for Automatically Programmed Tools or any variety on that theme ... It's both a language and a program, came from MIT originally at the same time that CNC was developed / invented / designed, and by many of the same people. Then the aerospace industry took over development ... it was the very first ANSI standard and most of the aircraft built before 1980 would have been designed with APT. It was still common into the 90's ... the wikipedia page is not bad but if you're lazy ...
First step is to define the part using geometry statements. Common entities include circles, lines (in fact it's all 3d so a line is just a specialized form of a plane), cones, spheres, parabolas, hyperbolas, surfaces, mathematically-defined arcs, whatever. If you've played with FORTRAN the conventions will be familiar ...
CIRCLE1 / CIRCLE, POINTA, DIA 6
LINE2 /LINE, 12, 17, 44, TANTO, CIRCLE6
and so on ... gazillions of ways to define each entity.
The next section is tool movement commands - turn on spindle at 3000 rpm clockwise, turn on coolant, start from point A, rapid to point B, go forward to the intersection of plane one with circle three, turn left on circle three at four inches per minute to the intersection with plane five, rapid to the start point, turn off spindle, turn off coolant, rewind, fini.
Rewind refers to tape, of course. Did you know that SR-71 missions were controlled by a computer running paper (mylar) tape ? I think until the very end. Funny.
These days maybe that's too much work for people but compared to an HP-41, it's a dream. Also, as you can imagine, it's quite a bit more powerful than graphics programs if you are more of a programmer than a clicky-the-picture sort. For families of parts, just change the dimensions on your geometry. Run the part definition through the interpreter again. Viola, new part, same program. GE built entire families of turbine engines with a spreadsheet and APT loooong before MySQL was a gleam in Larry's gimpy eye.
The program is in the public domain - hard to find the source code though, it's so old and not sexy for the anti-aliased fonts crowd. Easiest way to try is to get a trial copy of Personal APT (web search) which is a subset of the complete language. Bob Drewry was involved in the original program, he's retired and messes with this in his dotage. He's created a Windows shell for today's users, I much prefer the DOS version. Price for the whole thing - program, manual, postprocessors - is around $300. Or was, last I checked. It's worth it. The manual alone is a full course in machine tool programming.
There were several other versions of APT out there but I believe most have fallen by the wayside. The military still uses it, I'd imagine. They've got all those B-52 parts to keep in inventory.
Quote:
All in all, I knew from the start that FreeCAD is not into the same leagues that the biggest ones.
I've messed with every free cad app I can find, you can bet on that
I don't like any of them very much. To tell the truth I am surprised there aren't any nice ones. There have been a few with promise but they seem to have fallen by the wayside. They are all so busy playing with their dicks that they forget the purpose of a CAD program - to draw/design stuff. 80% of the screen is icons. Hey ! Where's the damn part go ? Over here in this postage-stamp-sized mini-window ?
Quote:
Even on IRIX lands would be a more than nice addition! But my Octane needs some maintenance before to be able to try to port or run anything again. Remember: I'm saying FOSS...
There is also Irit and that BRM CSG thing. Neither of those seemed very exciting from the point of view of machining tho.
Quote:
don't bring to the table CATIA, PRO/ENGINEER, etc...
Nah, I understand. But APT is going to kick ass over anything from Open Cascade for the next century. Much five-axis work is still done in APT. Just a few years ago it was
all
done in APT, because the graphics apps couldn't handle the math
Quote:
But for some little lost-wax pouring models would be cool... amateurs, hobbyists, etc.
Not to be mean but I can't see it being good for that, even. For small delicate work you want a
very
high-speed spindle and good rigidity and accuracy and repeatability. Little parts have details in the .0001"s. If the best your machine can repeat is .0005" (with luck) then you're going to be disappointed. That kind of accuracy isn't free. That little thing is so flimsy Ahnuld could crush it in one hand like a beer can. I can't see it being useful for anything at all.