Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:40:23 +0100, you wrote: Le 2013-11-28 03:55, a k a écrit : how to convert STL file into other useful format? I know several tools able to do that: - CamBam - Deskproto - BobCAD-CAM - Mecsoft FreeMill - Vectric Cut3D Problem with a lot of 3D scanner produced stl files is they are often bad. Holes, non manifold edges, inverted normals, degenerate faces, naked edges etc the list goes on. Generally they are OK if you want to 3D print them, but if you want to edit or modify for CAM operations you may have problems. Converting to other formats can sometimes create even more problems! I've done a lot of it lately and it's a PITA! Running them through netfabb first before converting sometimes works. http://cloud.netfabb.com/ Often you still end up manually editing mesh faces which can be very time consuming indeed. Steve Blackmore -- -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
On 11/27/2013 8:28 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Wednesday 27 November 2013 22:24:46 a k did opine: hi i found new 3d scanner http://cubify.com/sense/ problem is that file output STL from that scanner. That is not its only problem, very low resolution, 240 wide by 320 high is the real turnoff for me. That is only very slightly better than home VHS movies. Have a look at this. http://www.david-3d.com It does laser line and structured light 3D scanning. -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
How about free? http://www.123dapp.com/catch (note, I haven't actually got this to work on my phone) -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
Le 2013-11-28 03:55, a k a écrit : how to convert STL file into other useful format? I know several tools able to do that: - CamBam - Deskproto - BobCAD-CAM - Mecsoft FreeMill - Vectric Cut3D CamBam is not able to handle four axis easily (you can do indexed, but that is tricky), but the price point is very good. I am a beginner with BobCAD, but it looks very promising for my hobby needs. FreeMill is limited but it is free. For 3D scanning I use David-Laserscanner which is quite good. I use it with a DIY laser sweeping mechanism: http://blog.f1oat.org/2013/09/29/laser-sweeping-mechanism/ You will find plenty a power users on David website forum with many good examples of the capabilities. Regards Frederic. -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
On 11/28/2013 3:29 AM, andy pugh wrote: How about free? http://www.123dapp.com/catch (note, I haven't actually got this to work on my phone) Still no Android version. -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
[Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
hi i found new 3d scanner http://cubify.com/sense/ problem is that file output STL from that scanner. i know that ---Synergy does not have surface cutting routines for STL objects. my cad/cam is weber sys. how to convert STL file into other useful format? does MasterCam able to use STL model to generate g code? important part is that this 3D scanner cost only $ 400.00 and this is ---hand held -- type scanner. thanks aram -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3D scanner !!!???
On Wednesday 27 November 2013 22:24:46 a k did opine: hi i found new 3d scanner http://cubify.com/sense/ problem is that file output STL from that scanner. That is not its only problem, very low resolution, 240 wide by 320 high is the real turnoff for me. That is only very slightly better than home VHS movies. i know that ---Synergy does not have surface cutting routines for STL objects. my cad/cam is weber sys. how to convert STL file into other useful format? does MasterCam able to use STL model to generate g code? important part is that this 3D scanner cost only $ 400.00 and this is ---hand held -- type scanner. thanks aram Cheers, Gene -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene What terrible way to die. There are no good ways. -- Sulu and Kirk, That Which Survives, stardate unknown A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
[Emc-users] 3d scanner
My point about scanning multiple known good masters was that Aram's stated intent was to correct machining [on the fly] - an Iges (or any other neutral format) from a modeler would [typically] give you the intended finished part, not something partially complete. I'm following this up more as an intellectual exercise, as the future certainly holds options similar to this, and actually, I like where the discussion is heading. It's tough to define the logic on what a machine needs to fix in the middle of the process, if all it has it the final part. For example, if you have a part that requires a drilled hole, counterbore, and edge chamfer, all of which you generate with standard tooling (not a single form tool), you have for example, three operations (more if you spot drill and ream of course). Assuming part lineup and planar corrections are all taken care of, if you directly compare your finished Iges against the first two major operations, the comparison will fail. The computer will say the hole is smaller than it needs to be and throw up a red flag. If instead of drilling, you decide to helically-bore the original hole and the counterbore, the automatic logic may actually direct the machine to re-bore the first hole to the wrong size (larger counterbore) all the way through and destroy the part. Thus, if you're going to do interim comparisons, you need to have interim masters, or at the very least, enough intelligence and command in the comparison program to limit the areas to be scanned versus the areas to be ignored - in 3d space, of course. I consider myself a comfortable coder, but even I wouldn't want the task of that - I'd rather have a series of golden samples each stage along the way just to do direct comparisons to. I do use Iges files (either customer provided or in-house generated) in Rhino3D against an optical scan to show simple difference models (no special FEA or the like) - I simply make the bodies different colors and let the renderer figure it out - it's the pretty picture of red and green that the client likes to see. From a measurable aspect, I dig out my Faro arm too - before you say, true, he has all the toys - this one I built from found digitizing arm parts (read: dumpster and ebay), hacked it together and built my own system. I didn't have the 20K to drop on one of these wonderful units. (And I really like the idea of working on my own gear.) Although I machine and design as an occupation, its the CAD that really pays the bills so I have the opportunity to CNC as a hobby. The toys, both commercial and hobby-fied, try to support the occupation as best it can. Btw - EMC/LCNC was a big help in getting that arm going - it taught me about [serial] forward kinematics and how easy it is to lose your mind trying to figure out a little grid of numbers 4x4! I eventually moved the system over to Unity3d (game engine, not the Ubuntu gui) where I can run capture on my phone or tablet, then export that as an intelligent point cloud to Rhino for building. Which is where this conversation goes next. We had a lot of discussion a number of years ago with folks trying to build their own digitizing arms - you really need a stable structure and preferably 6 degrees of freedom, (thus 6 encoders) - but after that, the kins can be done in many possible ways. Some of us even tried doing it by straight math in a PIC or Arduino, (insane asylum, please!) although I got really lucky with Unity3d: build a model of the arm, drop it in properly parented, feed in the encoder angles via a serial port, write a lot of script, route a lot of PCBs, and eventually, watch the arm move around in virtual space. A few years ago, I would have lost my mind, though today it's become a lot more readily available to us unwashed masses. I have an affinity to (no, actually I LOVE) the arm concept because I get to choose what gets scanned and how it gets scanned. That's what I consider the most important item in making a point cloud (or any data) useable. The human element lets us draw the line the way we see it or need it, the machine gets the hard data. If I want to know parametrics of a round hole, I don't scan the entire circle, I hit a button that I use as a macro that I touch three points on that circle, which results in a center and a radius. Math can be awesome. Rhino and many other 3d modelers have varied tools for creating drapes and such from a cloud of points, but all will have limited results if its just a rectangular cloud. The modelers all know what to do with a center and a radius, however. And let's face it - as machinists we're really interested in the center of a hole and it's diameter - not that it has 412 verts with one reversed normal. We can see automation added to this by looking at a current CMM; instead of having to manually run the probe around with a joystick, you can now teach (by manually running the probe around with a
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
I consider myself a comfortable coder, but even I wouldn't want the task of that - I'd rather have a series of golden samples each stage along the way just to do direct comparisons to. boeing and lockheed only buy off on the iges files , protocol demands they be checked against the iges file period . not a good master the reason being is a good master is simply a part that is in tolerance and stackup can burn you. now to the really important thing any documentation on your faro arm build? i would be highly interested in seeing links to this and is it capable of comparing to an iges file? or just a good master? On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ted Hyde laser...@gmail.com wrote: My point about scanning multiple known good masters was that Aram's stated intent was to correct machining [on the fly] - an Iges (or any other neutral format) from a modeler would [typically] give you the intended finished part, not something partially complete. I'm following this up more as an intellectual exercise, as the future certainly holds options similar to this, and actually, I like where the discussion is heading. It's tough to define the logic on what a machine needs to fix in the middle of the process, if all it has it the final part. For example, if you have a part that requires a drilled hole, counterbore, and edge chamfer, all of which you generate with standard tooling (not a single form tool), you have for example, three operations (more if you spot drill and ream of course). Assuming part lineup and planar corrections are all taken care of, if you directly compare your finished Iges against the first two major operations, the comparison will fail. The computer will say the hole is smaller than it needs to be and throw up a red flag. If instead of drilling, you decide to helically-bore the original hole and the counterbore, the automatic logic may actually direct the machine to re-bore the first hole to the wrong size (larger counterbore) all the way through and destroy the part. Thus, if you're going to do interim comparisons, you need to have interim masters, or at the very least, enough intelligence and command in the comparison program to limit the areas to be scanned versus the areas to be ignored - in 3d space, of course. I consider myself a comfortable coder, but even I wouldn't want the task of that - I'd rather have a series of golden samples each stage along the way just to do direct comparisons to. I do use Iges files (either customer provided or in-house generated) in Rhino3D against an optical scan to show simple difference models (no special FEA or the like) - I simply make the bodies different colors and let the renderer figure it out - it's the pretty picture of red and green that the client likes to see. From a measurable aspect, I dig out my Faro arm too - before you say, true, he has all the toys - this one I built from found digitizing arm parts (read: dumpster and ebay), hacked it together and built my own system. I didn't have the 20K to drop on one of these wonderful units. (And I really like the idea of working on my own gear.) Although I machine and design as an occupation, its the CAD that really pays the bills so I have the opportunity to CNC as a hobby. The toys, both commercial and hobby-fied, try to support the occupation as best it can. Btw - EMC/LCNC was a big help in getting that arm going - it taught me about [serial] forward kinematics and how easy it is to lose your mind trying to figure out a little grid of numbers 4x4! I eventually moved the system over to Unity3d (game engine, not the Ubuntu gui) where I can run capture on my phone or tablet, then export that as an intelligent point cloud to Rhino for building. Which is where this conversation goes next. We had a lot of discussion a number of years ago with folks trying to build their own digitizing arms - you really need a stable structure and preferably 6 degrees of freedom, (thus 6 encoders) - but after that, the kins can be done in many possible ways. Some of us even tried doing it by straight math in a PIC or Arduino, (insane asylum, please!) although I got really lucky with Unity3d: build a model of the arm, drop it in properly parented, feed in the encoder angles via a serial port, write a lot of script, route a lot of PCBs, and eventually, watch the arm move around in virtual space. A few years ago, I would have lost my mind, though today it's become a lot more readily available to us unwashed masses. I have an affinity to (no, actually I LOVE) the arm concept because I get to choose what gets scanned and how it gets scanned. That's what I consider the most important item in making a point cloud (or any data) useable. The human element lets us draw the line the way we see it or need it, the machine gets the hard data. If I want to know parametrics of a round hole, I don't scan the entire circle, I hit a button that I use as a macro that I
[Emc-users] 3d scanner
On 6/13/2013 11:02 AM, emc-users-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote: boeing and lockheed only buy off on the iges files , protocol demands they be checked against the iges file period . not a good master the reason being is a good master is simply a part that is in tolerance and stackup can burn you. Understandable, as would any customer that knowledgeable - perhaps it's semantics, or the evolution of the discussion, but I'd certainly concede that the interim masters need not be only visually scanned off of the part in the vise (although that was my original statement for simplicity's sake) - to be honest, the interim master could (should?) be quite virtual, developed from the final part model - for the sake of discussion, I'm looking at what I would consider the inability for a computer to infer that a counterbore in a final part is not a fault when the machine hasn't made it yet, or the fact that if the Iges doesn't have modeled threads when the real part does, it also isn't a fault. I'm limiting the dataset to only a visual comparison, where the computer only has surface boundaries, and in its simplest form, EVERY surface boundary to distill down to a single confidence value. In a perfect graphical-oriented app, perhaps the process would be load the Finished iges and click on the inner wall of the first-op hole - and in doing so it sets the logic that this diameter is the reference for the visual interim inspection of the first-op, not what one sees on the face of the finished part iges (counterbore and chamfer). While this concept is nothing new to say, BrownSharpe, I'm unsure if we would be successful at integrating that into LCNC anytime soon. now to the really important thing any documentation on your faro arm build? i would be highly interested in seeing links to this and is it capable of comparing to an iges file? or just a good master? Ahh, I've been called! And I've also been lax on getting the blogs updated (the Tsugami is at casafrog.com/cfblog, also in need of updating, and Round-tuits) - so I suppose I do need to put up stuff on the arm - I've no problems making it open source, anyway - I don't have any logos on the models, and the Frankenstein arm as assembled isn't one that a particular company in Lake Mary FL actually ever made, nor does it use any of their electronics, firmware or softwareI guess I was just getting past the whole infringement thing. It certainly isn't a 0.001mm tolerance device - there are micrometers and indicators for that, but I consider it quite adequate for what I use it for, and its cost. I've been able to measure stackups of my asian B gauge blocks (also what was used to calibrate them, so I suppose at some time I need to reference against another gauge) with repeatability to 0.08mm and close volumetric precision at about +/-0.1mm (I think a good day would be +/-0.08mm) - neither of these numbers are amazing compared to a real Faro, which are an order of magnitude better, but my application isn't warranting NIST trace, either. Since the structure and encoders are not likely to be the difference when one is comparing the two, it comes down to mostly what I did with it - ignored thermal growth, maybe missing the occasional encoder count, maybe didn't get a dimension or model a section of arm correctly (these were measured parts, not from engineering drawings) - and yes, they (so I'm told) came from a dumpster and were in the back of some guy's pickup. None of which contribute to maintaining the precision the arm is capable of. I fully concur that when you stackup some of those values you can have a part that isn't precise, but then again, if we've mis-calcuated the pitch on a leadscrew, you can end up with an imprecise part too! But at the end of the day, I'd trade the precision of a job for the fun of the hobby every time. At least until the wife and bank account decides otherwise One of the biggest challenges I've had with the arm is mounting - I've sat in on demos (since Faro is about an hour north of me), and I see them pulling out a tripod and hitting dead-zero bulls-eyes every time. I would have figured a pod would have been the least accurate of anything, and yet. Often I'm clamping the base of my arm to a workbench. And it flexes. And I'm out 2mm at 1 m distance. Then I cry. Although far from a releasable package, my process is my little Unity game either on a Win32 laptop or an Android, that gets both continuous and a time-locked series of encoder angles from my PICs in the arm (via serial). The continuous stream is nice to drive the visual rending of the arm on the screen, while the time-locked series is the important set - basically 6 encoder angles that are grabbed and stored when I push a button on the arm itself - thus there's little chance for loss of sync during the streaming process. The app also does the heavy lifting of the forward kins of figuring out where the
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
On 13 June 2013 17:20, Ted Hyde laser...@gmail.com wrote: One of the biggest challenges I've had with the arm is mounting - I've sat in on demos (since Faro is about an hour north of me), and I see them pulling out a tripod and hitting dead-zero bulls-eyes every time. I have mapped out locations of acellerometers all over a Transit van body with a 1m reach Faro arm. The ability to reposition and stitch was pretty useful. I have heard of a device for that job that uses 4 microphones in the corners of the room and a clicker. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
Can you point us to such a $500 depth sensor?. Thanks, Javier On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:34 AM, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: why not just probe check the technology is already mature. not tryin to disuade just sayin i mean if you are developing it great please share in the wiki On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM, a k pccncmach...@gmail.com wrote: Hi i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Depth sensor cost around $500 and rest is software. I think that by adding 3d scanner ability to EMC2 possible create new generation 5th generation machine tool. thanks aram -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government. - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, March 9, 2007 jeremy youngs -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
--- On Tue, 6/11/13, a k pccncmach...@gmail.com wrote: i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Look up DAVID laser scanner. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
HI, My 2ct, when I tried 2 years ago to have a reliable 3d scanner for cheap, I tried the line laser option, cost nothing (a laser line is 5$ on ebay, and I recycle a good webcam). My conclusion were that the raw scan need a lot of cleaning before having anything useful for milling. Maybe it improved in the meantime, but it seems to be challenging to have something useful with this technology. Also, the laser will hate having dust in the air ... so for on the fly correction of the tool path ... Cheers, Yves, 2013/6/12 Gregg Eshelman g_ala...@yahoo.com: --- On Tue, 6/11/13, a k pccncmach...@gmail.com wrote: i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Look up DAVID laser scanner. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
[Emc-users] 3d scanner
In regards to a depth sensor, there's a good change Aram is referring to a Kinect or the Asus Xtion (Pro Live). There's been plenty of hacker-friendly attempts for point-n-shoot capture solutions using these over the years, adding to the laser-line, and distributed-light methods. The Xtion unit retails sub-$250, so it's an expensive experiment, but a contender for entry-level scanning - but it's only part of the hardware side. The DAVID project uses just laser and distributed light methods (at current, IIRC), so not a compatible software piece. There are retail packages that speak with a Kinect or Xtion, my favorite low-cost at the moment is Manctl's Skanect, but I also like the free Faro (tickler), Scenect. There are of course others. Most are Win32 or Win64 offerings only. OpenCV is often used as a framework for open-source attempts, so not all hope is lost if someone wants to try In a commercial environment, I do create and provide difference scans of parts in some cases as required by a client, but it's pretty rare. A big thing to note about volumetric scanning versus probing is that scanning gets you a profile, and it takes a lot of time; probing gets you parametric data and can be extremely fast. To implement an in-process scanning technique effectively, I would have to do it in between machining operations - not just at the end, as one part feature may be dependent upon the next, such as a helical thread inside a drilled then bored hole) - and although most faults like that would cause tool damage, I wouldn't want to write part programs so that each individual feature is a separate operation (that's what automation is supposed to make easier!) - thus the logic decision as to how to fix the problem won't exist. Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. Furthermore, the scanner is unable to understand chips, swarf or coolant sitting on the part - it will look like a fault in the part and raise an alarm. Get coolant on the lens and your scanning is of no value. Probing, on the other hand, can be more easily automated, and directed towards achieving the stated goal - whether or not a particular feature is within tolerance. I use both laser and depth-based scanning plus probing for a variety of tasks, but only probing on my machines. I would liken volumetric scanning versus probing to the earlier implementation of a webcam (camview by pavel et al, for example, which I really do applaud) for tool-length-setting (and more) versus a touch probe. Although I'm enamored with having a non-contact tool setter, a camera is much less tolerant of mistakes or changes in the environment than a touch probe. When you just want to get parts out, the touch probe JustWorks. That's not to say that having a volumetric scanner as a tool in a machine isn't a possibility or a value, but the historical intent for LCNC not to require a 64bit 8-core watercooled machine with Cray loadbalancing (sic) makes it a difficult challenge to have it integrated with LCNC. My preference would be to have it on a separate machine as a standalone application, but load the sensor as a tool when needed. The benefit is the automation of the motion of the camera (instead of human hand) which in that aspect, would return a much more accurate result. Since the software has to chew on the scanning result, it would actually be dangerous to have this type of interruption (and I guarantee it would be an interruption) to the safety of the LCNC realtime loop. Ted. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
sorry sent before finished , i agree with all of the other statements though On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:52 AM, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: ted said Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. not exactly just compare it to an iges file that will never change . or other parametric solid On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ted Hyde laser...@gmail.com wrote: In regards to a depth sensor, there's a good change Aram is referring to a Kinect or the Asus Xtion (Pro Live). There's been plenty of hacker-friendly attempts for point-n-shoot capture solutions using these over the years, adding to the laser-line, and distributed-light methods. The Xtion unit retails sub-$250, so it's an expensive experiment, but a contender for entry-level scanning - but it's only part of the hardware side. The DAVID project uses just laser and distributed light methods (at current, IIRC), so not a compatible software piece. There are retail packages that speak with a Kinect or Xtion, my favorite low-cost at the moment is Manctl's Skanect, but I also like the free Faro (tickler), Scenect. There are of course others. Most are Win32 or Win64 offerings only. OpenCV is often used as a framework for open-source attempts, so not all hope is lost if someone wants to try In a commercial environment, I do create and provide difference scans of parts in some cases as required by a client, but it's pretty rare. A big thing to note about volumetric scanning versus probing is that scanning gets you a profile, and it takes a lot of time; probing gets you parametric data and can be extremely fast. To implement an in-process scanning technique effectively, I would have to do it in between machining operations - not just at the end, as one part feature may be dependent upon the next, such as a helical thread inside a drilled then bored hole) - and although most faults like that would cause tool damage, I wouldn't want to write part programs so that each individual feature is a separate operation (that's what automation is supposed to make easier!) - thus the logic decision as to how to fix the problem won't exist. Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. Furthermore, the scanner is unable to understand chips, swarf or coolant sitting on the part - it will look like a fault in the part and raise an alarm. Get coolant on the lens and your scanning is of no value. Probing, on the other hand, can be more easily automated, and directed towards achieving the stated goal - whether or not a particular feature is within tolerance. I use both laser and depth-based scanning plus probing for a variety of tasks, but only probing on my machines. I would liken volumetric scanning versus probing to the earlier implementation of a webcam (camview by pavel et al, for example, which I really do applaud) for tool-length-setting (and more) versus a touch probe. Although I'm enamored with having a non-contact tool setter, a camera is much less tolerant of mistakes or changes in the environment than a touch probe. When you just want to get parts out, the touch probe JustWorks. That's not to say that having a volumetric scanner as a tool in a machine isn't a possibility or a value, but the historical intent for LCNC not to require a 64bit 8-core watercooled machine with Cray loadbalancing (sic) makes it a difficult challenge to have it integrated with LCNC. My preference would be to have it on a separate machine as a standalone application, but load the sensor as a tool when needed. The benefit is the automation of the motion of the camera (instead of human hand) which in that aspect, would return a much more accurate result. Since the software has to chew on the scanning result, it would actually be dangerous to have this type of interruption (and I guarantee it would be an interruption) to the safety of the LCNC realtime loop. Ted. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- We conclude that the Second
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
ted said Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. not exactly just compare it to an iges file that will never change . or other parametric solid On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ted Hyde laser...@gmail.com wrote: In regards to a depth sensor, there's a good change Aram is referring to a Kinect or the Asus Xtion (Pro Live). There's been plenty of hacker-friendly attempts for point-n-shoot capture solutions using these over the years, adding to the laser-line, and distributed-light methods. The Xtion unit retails sub-$250, so it's an expensive experiment, but a contender for entry-level scanning - but it's only part of the hardware side. The DAVID project uses just laser and distributed light methods (at current, IIRC), so not a compatible software piece. There are retail packages that speak with a Kinect or Xtion, my favorite low-cost at the moment is Manctl's Skanect, but I also like the free Faro (tickler), Scenect. There are of course others. Most are Win32 or Win64 offerings only. OpenCV is often used as a framework for open-source attempts, so not all hope is lost if someone wants to try In a commercial environment, I do create and provide difference scans of parts in some cases as required by a client, but it's pretty rare. A big thing to note about volumetric scanning versus probing is that scanning gets you a profile, and it takes a lot of time; probing gets you parametric data and can be extremely fast. To implement an in-process scanning technique effectively, I would have to do it in between machining operations - not just at the end, as one part feature may be dependent upon the next, such as a helical thread inside a drilled then bored hole) - and although most faults like that would cause tool damage, I wouldn't want to write part programs so that each individual feature is a separate operation (that's what automation is supposed to make easier!) - thus the logic decision as to how to fix the problem won't exist. Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. Furthermore, the scanner is unable to understand chips, swarf or coolant sitting on the part - it will look like a fault in the part and raise an alarm. Get coolant on the lens and your scanning is of no value. Probing, on the other hand, can be more easily automated, and directed towards achieving the stated goal - whether or not a particular feature is within tolerance. I use both laser and depth-based scanning plus probing for a variety of tasks, but only probing on my machines. I would liken volumetric scanning versus probing to the earlier implementation of a webcam (camview by pavel et al, for example, which I really do applaud) for tool-length-setting (and more) versus a touch probe. Although I'm enamored with having a non-contact tool setter, a camera is much less tolerant of mistakes or changes in the environment than a touch probe. When you just want to get parts out, the touch probe JustWorks. That's not to say that having a volumetric scanner as a tool in a machine isn't a possibility or a value, but the historical intent for LCNC not to require a 64bit 8-core watercooled machine with Cray loadbalancing (sic) makes it a difficult challenge to have it integrated with LCNC. My preference would be to have it on a separate machine as a standalone application, but load the sensor as a tool when needed. The benefit is the automation of the motion of the camera (instead of human hand) which in that aspect, would return a much more accurate result. Since the software has to chew on the scanning result, it would actually be dangerous to have this type of interruption (and I guarantee it would be an interruption) to the safety of the LCNC realtime loop. Ted. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
this is what we need to be working toward :) http://www.faro.com/en-us/products/metrology/measuring-arm-faro-scanarm/overview On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: sorry sent before finished , i agree with all of the other statements though On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:52 AM, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: ted said Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. not exactly just compare it to an iges file that will never change . or other parametric solid On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ted Hyde laser...@gmail.com wrote: In regards to a depth sensor, there's a good change Aram is referring to a Kinect or the Asus Xtion (Pro Live). There's been plenty of hacker-friendly attempts for point-n-shoot capture solutions using these over the years, adding to the laser-line, and distributed-light methods. The Xtion unit retails sub-$250, so it's an expensive experiment, but a contender for entry-level scanning - but it's only part of the hardware side. The DAVID project uses just laser and distributed light methods (at current, IIRC), so not a compatible software piece. There are retail packages that speak with a Kinect or Xtion, my favorite low-cost at the moment is Manctl's Skanect, but I also like the free Faro (tickler), Scenect. There are of course others. Most are Win32 or Win64 offerings only. OpenCV is often used as a framework for open-source attempts, so not all hope is lost if someone wants to try In a commercial environment, I do create and provide difference scans of parts in some cases as required by a client, but it's pretty rare. A big thing to note about volumetric scanning versus probing is that scanning gets you a profile, and it takes a lot of time; probing gets you parametric data and can be extremely fast. To implement an in-process scanning technique effectively, I would have to do it in between machining operations - not just at the end, as one part feature may be dependent upon the next, such as a helical thread inside a drilled then bored hole) - and although most faults like that would cause tool damage, I wouldn't want to write part programs so that each individual feature is a separate operation (that's what automation is supposed to make easier!) - thus the logic decision as to how to fix the problem won't exist. Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against. If you want accuracy, measuring scale on a single volumetric scan is near impossible. You need to have many angles and views stitched together to see past obstructions. Any imperfection in the part, including unintended, is recorded [perfectly]. Furthermore, the scanner is unable to understand chips, swarf or coolant sitting on the part - it will look like a fault in the part and raise an alarm. Get coolant on the lens and your scanning is of no value. Probing, on the other hand, can be more easily automated, and directed towards achieving the stated goal - whether or not a particular feature is within tolerance. I use both laser and depth-based scanning plus probing for a variety of tasks, but only probing on my machines. I would liken volumetric scanning versus probing to the earlier implementation of a webcam (camview by pavel et al, for example, which I really do applaud) for tool-length-setting (and more) versus a touch probe. Although I'm enamored with having a non-contact tool setter, a camera is much less tolerant of mistakes or changes in the environment than a touch probe. When you just want to get parts out, the touch probe JustWorks. That's not to say that having a volumetric scanner as a tool in a machine isn't a possibility or a value, but the historical intent for LCNC not to require a 64bit 8-core watercooled machine with Cray loadbalancing (sic) makes it a difficult challenge to have it integrated with LCNC. My preference would be to have it on a separate machine as a standalone application, but load the sensor as a tool when needed. The benefit is the automation of the motion of the camera (instead of human hand) which in that aspect, would return a much more accurate result. Since the software has to chew on the scanning result, it would actually be dangerous to have this type of interruption (and I guarantee it would be an interruption) to the safety of the LCNC realtime loop. Ted. -- This
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
-Original Message- From: Stuart Stevenson [mailto:stus...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:05 AM To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) Subject: Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner this is what we need to be working toward :) http://www.faro.com/en-us/products/metrology/measuring-arm-far o-scanarm/overview Regardless of how well it works, or how much it costs that is one wicked looking tool! -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
On 12 June 2013 13:52, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: not exactly just compare it to an iges file that will never change . or other parametric solid Going from a point-cloud to a parametric solid is not even slightly easy. However, in this case I guess that you could create a virtual point-cloud from the IGES file for point-by-point comparison. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
I'm interested in whether you could use a leap for this. https://leapmotion.com/product I am still trying to get ahold of one :-) DougM On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Watier Yves w...@tieryves.com wrote: HI, My 2ct, when I tried 2 years ago to have a reliable 3d scanner for cheap, I tried the line laser option, cost nothing (a laser line is 5$ on ebay, and I recycle a good webcam). My conclusion were that the raw scan need a lot of cleaning before having anything useful for milling. Maybe it improved in the meantime, but it seems to be challenging to have something useful with this technology. Also, the laser will hate having dust in the air ... so for on the fly correction of the tool path ... Cheers, Yves, 2013/6/12 Gregg Eshelman g_ala...@yahoo.com: --- On Tue, 6/11/13, a k pccncmach...@gmail.com wrote: i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Look up DAVID laser scanner. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
Andy; On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote: Going from a point-cloud to a parametric solid is not even slightly easy. It's not that hard. In my Android App (for instance) I take STL vertices, group them, then recreate triangles; it makes rendering much faster, and lighting/texturing much better. John Alexander Stewart (if you are incredibly interested, search Google Play for my name - I'm not going to advertise here!) -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
On 12 June 2013 17:15, John Alexander Stewart ivatt...@gmail.com wrote: Going from a point-cloud to a parametric solid is not even slightly easy. It's not that hard. In my Android App (for instance) I take STL vertices, group them, then recreate triangles; it makes rendering much faster, and lighting/texturing much better. That isn't quite the same thing, though. A scanned point cloud probably has too many points, and the position of each point has some dither. Deciding what is noise and what is features is one complication. It gets even harder if you have two surfaces very close together (an inside and an outside for example). Even if you build an STL from the points, that is still nowhere near a parametric solid. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
the above mentioned faro arm compares the product to the iges file and verifies . these are nice the one i used was 17000 out of the box . they are absolutely necessary for 5 axis swarfed surfaces on airframe parts . as to point cloud to parametric solid i have no idea how to do that so i will take your word for it . what i was infering to was this part of the statement Even if it did, one would have to scan a known-good-master at each step of the production for the test scan to reference against you wouldnt need a known good master if you were able to use an ices or other model to compare it to . that was the point of my comment but i now see the point cloud issue at hand . and your solution However, in this case I guess that you could create a virtual point-cloud from the IGES file for point-by-point comparison. which is basically working the problem backwards is exactly what the faro arm does , and is what i intended to convey by my previous post . now how it does it and why ??? well i never asked as the parts we were checking were 12 k eack so i was more worried about proper operation :) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 June 2013 13:52, jeremy youngs jcyoung...@gmail.com wrote: not exactly just compare it to an iges file that will never change . or other parametric solid Going from a point-cloud to a parametric solid is not even slightly easy. However, in this case I guess that you could create a virtual point-cloud from the IGES file for point-by-point comparison. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government. - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, March 9, 2007 jeremy youngs -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
[Emc-users] 3d scanner
Hi i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Depth sensor cost around $500 and rest is software. I think that by adding 3d scanner ability to EMC2 possible create new generation 5th generation machine tool. thanks aram -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
Re: [Emc-users] 3d scanner
why not just probe check the technology is already mature. not tryin to disuade just sayin i mean if you are developing it great please share in the wiki On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 PM, a k pccncmach...@gmail.com wrote: Hi i want to talk about 3d laser scanner. this is new technology that can be add to EMC2 Big picture is to generate intelligent milling machine machine tool. With 3d scanner machine tool can see inspect part that it cutting, analyze make correction and recut, Depth sensor cost around $500 and rest is software. I think that by adding 3d scanner ability to EMC2 possible create new generation 5th generation machine tool. thanks aram -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users -- We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government. - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, March 9, 2007 jeremy youngs -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev ___ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
