"Conversational" cnc programming good or bad??

[sickcivic95]

Way do you guys think abut this setup? Conversational vs full cnc programs?

I have bobcad/cam at work but am looking at a secondary setup on a milling center. I've looked at a few and one that stands out is Prototrax. I have an ACER that can be converted, it looks like they replace my current dro setup and install all new hand controls and feeds etc etc.

Have any of you guys used or heard anything on their systems or conversions? I've got a few younger guys just learning design and programming and many people have said this type is a lot easier to use/learn than full out CNC programs. BUT I wonder how many drawbacks it brings as far as abilities and them using our other system. I'd mainly be using it for small runs and prototype stuff but wouldn't want to make it a confusing for the guys if they are bouncing between the two.

Any input is greatly appreciated on this guys.

--Dan

[rlockwood]

bad, pointless

[sickcivic95]

Originally Posted by rlockwood

bad, pointless

Based on what.?.?

--Dan

[bob1961]

he don't know .......bob

....

[rlockwood]

Originally Posted by sickcivic95

Based on what.?.?

--Dan

CAD. Its so cheap these days, there are plenty of free CAD and free (or near free) CAM options out there, the idea of conversational programming is POINTLESS. The whole idea was so you wouldn't need to spend money on a PC and software, but those two things are such a small portion of the equation anymore that its insignificant.

[Crawling Calvin]

I have never done conversational programming but I have seen how it works and for simple stuff it is actually quite an interesting idea. The idea is sound its just it depends on the application. I use CAD/CAM all the time so that is what I am used to.

That said there is no excuse not to understand how a program works . I help teach people machining and I see all kinds of stupid things when people expect the computer to do all the work for them... I just stand back and try and not laugh There is no excuse for not knowing how things SHOULD run

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by rlockwood

CAD. Its so cheap these days, there are plenty of free CAD and free (or near free) CAM options out there, the idea of conversational programming is POINTLESS. The whole idea was so you wouldn't need to spend money on a PC and software, but those two things are such a small portion of the equation anymore that its insignificant.

Are you basing this opinion on your experience with a Prototrak, or your perception of how you think they work? I'll admit that not all conversational programming is great or even good. We have a Milltronics VMC for example that has a horrible conversational programming language.

Originally Posted by sickcivic95

I'd mainly be using it for small runs and prototype stuff but wouldn't want to make it a confusing for the guys if they are bouncing between the two.

We've had a 2-axis knee mill that was converted over to a Prototrak for about 10 years now. One area where the Prototrak excels is in it's conversational input. I can program our Prototrak for small runs, prototype parts and reworks faster than I can get our 3-axis VMC set up and running. If we are running off a large batch of parts, then the VMC and GibbsCAM gets the job, but our Prototrak sees use every single day. It's extremely easy to run and I've made parts from official drawings, paper napkin sketches and even with no drawing at all...just punching in what I want from my head.

One thing that you may not know, is that you can also get post processors for Protraks as well. If we have a challenging part to make, I'll use GibbsCAM and run it on the Prototrak, so it's capable of growing with you.

I love our Prototrak...if I could convince my boss, we'd have a second one with the newer controller. I also have a 3-Axis at home, but someday I also hope to have a Prototrak knee mill. I've seen them on Craigslist before for under $7K.

[rlockwood]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

Are you basing this opinion on your experience with a Prototrak, or your perception of how you think they work? I'll admit that not all conversational programming is great or even good. We have a Milltronics VMC for example that has a horrible conversational programming language.




We've had a 2-axis knee mill that was converted over to a Prototrak for about 10 years now. One area where the Prototrak excels is in it's conversational input. I can program our Prototrak for small runs, prototype parts and reworks faster than I can get our 3-axis VMC set up and running. If we are running off a large batch of parts, then the VMC and GibbsCAM gets the job, but our Prototrak sees use every single day. It's extremely easy to run and I've made parts from official drawings, paper napkin sketches and even with no drawing at all...just punching in what I want from my head.

One thing that you may not know, is that you can also get post processors for Protraks as well. If we have a challenging part to make, I'll use GibbsCAM and run it on the Prototrak, so it's capable of growing with you.

I love our Prototrak...if I could convince my boss, we'd have a second one with the newer controller. I also have a 3-Axis at home, but someday I also hope to have a Prototrak knee mill. I've seen them on Craigslist before for under $7K.

I shouldve been a bit more clear, its conversational in general-- not specifically on a prototrak. I had a bridgeport w/ Prototrak SMX previously, and while I rarely made use of the conversational, people from other departments were able to make good use of it. It was mostly used to face raw materials to size, and in that point o f use, conversational excels.

At any rate, if you're learning CNC, skip conversational-- atleast initially. Conversational is, in general, geared toward manual machinists who are scared of taking the plunge to full blown cad\cam. Get GOOD at using CAM software, and then decide if its necessary.

A prototrak, and most brideport copies in general, have a few pro's and con's. To me, the biggest is the cost of tooling, rigging, and transportation. For instance, a used fadal vmc15 can be had for ~12k-18k. I'd much rather have that machine than ANYTHING with a prototrak controller on it. But realize that the machines purchase price is a small portion of the bottom line. The prototrak, on the other hand, will actually cost basically what you pay for one on craigslist, especially since its likely to come with all the tooling you'd need.

Also, drop Bobcad. Its terrible.

[SlickRockSpider]

I have experience in programming. A Lot of time. A double star prompt no cad cam and thats it. Programed with abbreviations. I have programed a with g code and Cati (General Motors creation) and.....conversational.


I brought a conversational bed mill for the manual department. The old dogs where not happy but some of the younger guys bit hard. It was awesome.


sickcivic95 conversational is great. Your application is perfect.


Evan

[sickcivic95]

Thanks for the input guys, from some others I have also spoken with they have had great success with Prototrax. I'm not sure why some think it will only do basics like truing a piece of stock or base shapes. The demo I ran this weekend at a show ran full ops. i also did a piece from a wire frame design, I did in about 10 minutes compared to what would have been an hour or so on a cad system. I feel it would be good for us to use,but like I was saying before I don't want the younger guys learning on it at all. Their going through bobcad training now and that's what I want them to know.

The use of this one would be by myself and another machinist who is much much more experienced than me with cad/cam, manual systems, operating, programming, setup, etc etc. I just like the idea of being able to knock out something simple and quick without having to take him away from his main duties and so on. AND I'm far from even being considered a novice machinist. I am still learning how to setup and program etc and until I'm comfortable with doing a full set from design all the way through I'd still be using bobcad as my main system.

I'm still unsure wether I want to purchase a new mill center from them or upgrade my current Bridgeport to their O.S. but I will definitely be going with the Prototrax over the others like rot, and Jet. This setup will never replace my cad system and it was never intended to. It will be used mainly for quick prototyping or short runs if my mains are backed up the shop is busy.

@Rlockwood-- I know bob-cad is not the strongest system out there but v24 was a major upgrade from all the previous crap they had out and I just upgraded to V25. I run the pro setup with full 5 axis cad/cam and lathe. With its new abilities of operating direct with solid-works and internal bug foxes and its toolbox and metal stock it's really surpassed my expectations and I have yet to run into anything on v25 that has bugged out. It finally works straight from model to cnc mode without having to rewrite the programs or go through predator. And for the price I got on my upgrade I could not pass it up.

I learned (and am still learning) on bobcad so maybe that's why I'm comfortable with it more so than solidworks or mastercam. I don't consider myself to be anything more than a glorified picture maker at this point as I'm still learning at fully understanding g code. I have experience with manual milling and machining basics but not much more before this past year. So whilst learning through bobcad I was able to understand its layout compared to switching from a different operating system, which I hear from most people was its major flaw?


Please keep any and all input coming I truly appreciate it s this will be a decent chunk of change that ill be spending and I like to know as much as possible before I spend it.

-Dan

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by SlickRockSpider

Your application is perfect.

Originally Posted by sickcivic95

... It will be used mainly for quick prototyping or short runs if my mains are backed up the shop is busy.

I think this is the biggest thing to consider, as I too feel your application is perfect. If you were looking to make high production runs, I'd agree with rlockwood and say to look elsewhere. But for small runs, prototypes and reworks I'll take a knee mill with a Prototrak over a VMC. I have both sitting side by side here at work, and the Prototrak sees much more action since we do mostly what you are describing.

But I wouldn't keep your younger guys off of it. It's not like teaching Spanish to students learning French...you aren't going to confuse them, and the hands on machine time would benefit everyone.

Good luck

[tarmo120]

I wouldn't have thought I could ever learn machining without understanding the code. Because sometimes CAM produces false paths or flaws in the program.
In that case the programmer/machinist should be able to undersand the error and fix it. I'm not saying you couldn't learn just CAD/CAM, but it is better to start with the foundation.
And build your understanding from the ground up. This has worked for me very well.

[Krawler23]

I think it's important to know the code because cad/cam isn't always perfect for everything. For example you could have a design but the way it's set up it could be hard to try and find a spot to clamp the material. If you know what you are doing with the actual code you can tweak it a little to avoid messing up a clamp.

[rlockwood]

Originally Posted by Krawler23

I think it's important to know the code because cad/cam isn't always perfect for everything. For example you could have a design but the way it's set up it could be hard to try and find a spot to clamp the material. If you know what you are doing with the actual code you can tweak it a little to avoid messing up a clamp.

Or you can model the clamp in the assembly, tell your cam program its a fixture, and have your CAM software automatically avoid it. -- however I entirely agree, the importance of knowing precisely what every bit and byte of code is doing is absolutely of importance; But the days of needing to manually edit code (specifically, the tool-path portion) are numbered. In fact, I would gamble that within the next decade, tool paths will largely be defined by equations and algorithms, rather than lines and arcs.

Originally Posted by SlickRockSpider

I have experience in programming. A Lot of time. A double star prompt no cad cam and thats it. Programed with abbreviations. I have programed a with g code and Cati (General Motors creation) and.....conversational.


I brought a conversational bed mill for the manual department. The old dogs where not happy but some of the younger guys bit hard. It was awesome.


sickcivic95 conversational is great. Your application is perfect.


Evan

I don't intend this to be insulting in any way, but you're helping me prove my point quite clearly. Conversational is largely for people who don't want to learn a modern cad\cam package. I cant argue with having more tools in your toolbox-- I just wouldnt put much weight in the prototrak on the basis of its conversational capabilites.

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by rlockwood

Or you can model the clamp in the assembly, tell your cam program its a fixture, and have your CAM software automatically avoid it.

This is how I do it also. I model my fixtures as well, and import them into my CAM software.

Originally Posted by rlockwood

Conversational is largely for people who don't want to learn a modern cad\cam package.

True to a point, but I look at it more like an introduction to CNC. Use the conversational feature of your controller, then if and when you are at a point where it's needed, go to CAM. Like I said earlier, I also use GibbsCAM to program our Prototrak when it's needed.

sickcivic95, don't feel that if you get a Prototrak you'll only be able to do conversational input with it. I was just looking into it and it appears that BobCAD does have a Post Processor for Prototraks, so the software you already have can also be used on the Prototrak.

[SlickRockSpider]

Originally Posted by rlockwood

Or you can model the clamp in the assembly, tell your cam program its a fixture, and have your CAM software automatically avoid it. -- however I entirely agree, the importance of knowing precisely what every bit and byte of code is doing is absolutely of importance; But the days of needing to manually edit code (specifically, the tool-path portion) are numbered. In fact, I would gamble that within the next decade, tool paths will largely be defined by equations and algorithms, rather than lines and arcs.




I don't intend this to be insulting in any way, but you're helping me prove my point quite clearly. Conversational is largely for people who don't want to learn a modern cad\cam package. I cant argue with having more tools in your toolbox-- I just wouldnt put much weight in the prototrak on the basis of its conversational capabilites.

we already had a full cnc shop what we needed was to do some quick 2d simple stuff. I dont need to teach the tool makers cad/cam. I realize that conversational is not going to do complex stuff. Thats my point.

Evan

[sickcivic95]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

This is how I do it also. I model my fixtures as well, and import them into my CAM software.




True to a point, but I look at it more like an introduction to CNC. Use the conversational feature of your controller, then if and when you are at a point where it's needed, go to CAM. Like I said earlier, I also use GibbsCAM to program our Prototrak when it's needed.

sickcivic95, don't feel that if you get a Prototrak you'll only be able to do conversational input with it. I was just looking into it and it appears that BobCAD does have a Post Processor for Prototraks, so the software you already have can also be used on the Prototrak.

One of the reasons I started with looking at them as a possibility was because the processor was available for bobcad, I do plan on using it with existing programs we already run. As well as using it for new product I'd like to see it utilized as much as possible with second operations and such.

Unrelated to your comment but I see it was brought up by others in posts when I stated before That I didn't want the new guys learning on it wasn't meant as they couldn't use it, I just want them to understand code as much as possible and if they are just using this as their base it would never happen.

I've seen way to many times where operators and even designers have no clue what the program is actually telling them. As stated above there are areas where manual input can correct or better tool paths or operations and some just have no clue at how to change it.

My main machinist can change, modify, and even write on the fly without losing a step or causing a fault out where as his "apprentice" who is still learning so I can't be too hard, has no clue as to what to do even after being shown. I've watched him try to do setup and he just has the blank stare of a deer in headlights. He dropped tools out of the holder jammed bits on touch off etc which is more careless than not understanding but knowing what the screen says would help and myself knowing even less have figured it out quicker or without scraping out parts...


--Dan

[tom@vp]

depends on the application, machine, programmer...

some conversational programming systems are hard to beat on some jobs, for example Mazak lathes you can pick up a print and bang out a program faster than walking to the computer, but soon as you start adding anything complex it has diminishing returns..


for easy stuff hole paterns, circle and squares.... yes

complex shapes, 3d, ... PITA

[sickcivic95]

Originally Posted by tom@vp

depends on the application, machine, programmer...

some conversational programming systems are hard to beat on some jobs, for example Mazak lathes you can pick up a print and bang out a program faster than walking to the computer, but soon as you start adding anything complex it has diminishing returns..


for easy stuff hole paterns, circle and squares.... yes

complex shapes, 3d, ... PITA

Do you run any type of conversational on your machines? And I must agree a Mazak is a great machine they definelty set the par for what others need to do.

--Dan

[Bad Attitude]

Originally Posted by tom@vp

depends on the application, machine, programmer...

some conversational programming systems are hard to beat on some jobs, for example Mazak lathes you can pick up a print and bang out a program faster than walking to the computer, but soon as you start adding anything complex it has diminishing returns..


for easy stuff hole paterns, circle and squares.... yes

complex shapes, 3d, ... PITA

agreed! we have some Hurco mills and the thing I really hate about them (besides being Hurcos) is how you have to constantly manipulate them just to get around the conversational safety parameters. But for simple 2D machining, they are hard to beat for speed of getting the parts in production.