That was only 10 years ago, I'm not done yet :-) Tracy at Legacy requested
that any one wanting the router bit profiles in a dxf format will need to get
them from him. If I recall correctly his email address is
tr...@legacywoodworking.com. If that is not the right address I would call
him. The phone is the best way of talking to any one at Legacy. If all else
fails, get back in contact with me.
-Tim
- Original Message -
From: Jim Riggen
To: Legacy Ornamental Mills
Cc: Legacy-Ornamental-Mills@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Designing with Cad vs Design Kit
Tim,
Did you ever get the profiles separated? The message thread sorta ends
abruptly.
If you got them separated, are you willing to share them?
Thanks,
Jim
On Saturday, June 2, 2007 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'd like to share my files, but I just found out it is going to take an
extra step for me to do this. I turns out all of my profiles are stored in a
single collection. I will need to convert them to dxf files individually now
that I have them stored as symbols. I guessing this is a proprietary format.
I'm thinking about using acad version 14 as a shareable standard. Does that
work for anyone interested? I can export version 9 - 2006.
-Tim
- Original Message -
From: "Love to turn in Oregon" <jwi...@comcast.net>
To: "Legacy Ornamental Mills" <legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Designing with Cad vs Design Kit
>
> Would you mind sharing your designed profiles, and/or the technique
> you use to create your profiles? I would be interested in trying them
> with CAD.
>
> -Jeff
>
> On Jun 2, 8:02 am, "Steve Hunt" <s.hu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi..
> >
> > I have the design kit, but do not use it for the same reason as you guys
> > have mentioned, acad is much easier. The other problem I have with both
> > magnate and the legacy design kit is that nothing is labelled.. On the
> > design kit templates, there are no numbers to tell you which cutter you
are
> > drawing, similarly, magnate do not bother to put the cutter number on
their
> > router bits. Once the cutter is in acad, you can label it with its
number
> > and always keep track of what you are using..
> >
> > If it would be of any use to you, I could scan the design templates
(1:1)
> > and then maybe you could try to incorporate it into cad? Of course, you
will
> > still have to figure out which cutter is which.
> >
> > Steve..
> >
> > _
> >
> > From: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:Legacy-Ornamental-Mills@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Grant
Lasson
> > Sent: 02 June 2007 14:01
> > To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Designing with Cad vs Design Kit
> >
> > Been there and tried that. They seemed very suspicious about why I would
> > want them. Anyway, they claimed to me that they didn't have them. I said
I
> > was a little surprised because I thought all that cutting and shaping
was
> > done by CNC machines these days. They said that was true but that they
> > didn't make the bits. They outsourced that activity to another company.
> >
> > I'd much prefer to use CAD as my design kit. Much more flexible. Easy to
> > save a dozen different versions, etc. The difficulty, of course, is that
> > there isn't enough information given in the Magnate catalog to replicate
the
> > bit profile. One would either need the Design Kit or the actual bit. So,
> > this idea sits on the shelf with the rest of my good ideas waiting for
> > sufficient time.
> >
> > Grant
> >
> > From: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:Legacy-Ornamental-Mills@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Hunt
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 2:32 PM
> > To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Designing with Cad vs Design Kit
> >
> > Hi Tim.
> >
> > Have you tried emailing magnate? Maybe they already have cad files for
all
> > their cutters?
> >
> > Steve..
> >
> > _
> >
> > From: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:Legacy-Ornamental-Mills@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Krause
> > Sent: 01 June 2007 22:18
> > To: legac
