I think this great.
Really an awesome job guys!
I have a dewalt router. I hope you can get the parametric thing working. I would definitely print this.
I had better success with onshape Indeed
The inference engine is just better…
But fusion is great as an all in one platform for modeling and cam
Back to Solidworks then?
That makes some stuff more difficult, of course, since the benefit of parametric stuff is that it can be edited, and editing from CAD is the primary reason that I started working with Fusion360 in the first place.
I have also experienced my models having weird flips seemjngly at random (though I bet it is predictable if I knew how stuff was coded) and having no option other than “undo” to get things back to normal, since typically you can’t just undo a dimension.
I know that flipping dimension caused me headaches with the MP3DP bed support, to the point where it seemed faster to just re-draw it all. It also caused me plenty of trouble with Doug’s parametric table. It does not make me more amenable to dropping the cash on buying a Fusion360 license, at the very least. I can deal with weirdness in FreeCAD, because it’s free. I would be OK if there were a low-cost non-commercial license, maybe… but at the regular price? I can’t see that being palatable. If I were using it commercially, and getting this kind of errors? I’d be melting the tech support’s phone lines.
2 Likes
Something else I ran into was when I was creating a sketch that bodies would be based on, and I drew a line and entered a formula that was to give its dimension length, if the formula was not acceptable to F360 for some unknown reason (formatted in a way F360 didn’t like), if I missed that the formula turned red for a split second before I pressed enter, F360 would draw the line to where I was clicking, instead of the dimension, and since I was clicking in the right place, the line looked right, and the sketch interior area would turn to the blue color indicating a closed shape, and the model would allow the body extrusion. However, if I later changed parameters in some way, or perhaps in a certain way, the line described above would cease to exist, the sketch would become non-closed, and the body or bodies extruded from the sketch, would cease to display as though they did not exist.
1 Like
I never tried solidworks, but they have a very nice offer for makers
Under 10$/month for the full product is very tempting…
That is good to hear. I am looking at pricing.
Honesty, maybe. There is a free makers version so people can still edit my files.
From what I can tell if something is 2mm away, you make an edit and that thing is now on the other side of another object it tends to just put it there. Solidworks seems to at least what side of the line was it on. And SolidWorks rarely every loses a projection. Fusion losses it almost every single time.
In the end I am much faster, it takes less steps and editing /parametric is far better with solidworks.
Yeah another complain is sometimes it will complain about something missing and give a ghost of where it was…other times it is just gone and you have no idea what is missing. So going back to a two year old project to edit, it is usually faster for me to redo it. Yet I can still go back into my solidworks from 2015 and have no issues.
I won’t won’t go crazy in this thread I might be time to revist a new CAD thread. I pay $500/yr for fusion, rendering is good not great, Cam is a bonus but I do not use it. Onshape is free if I go completely open source, as in completely even developing openly, and that is a big no thank you. Paid onshape is more than solidworks and what happens when you stop paying, can you still edit old files…and only online. Solidworks is $3k+, no rendering at that price you can do a yearly maintenance but I would not do that but you own it and can easily go back to old files forever. They do have a new package I am actually going to call and ask about it. FreeCAD was not intuitive for me. I spent time learning fusion but the time I waste is a huge bummer, and the BOM system is just about worthless as well.
Really? I thought they got rid of all the free versions except educational
I have sat down and told myself I was going to bite the bullet and learn FreeCAD at least 10 times, but after using Fusion, it’s just really hard to force myself to use something that is not as polished and so different. After 5 minutes or so I usually give up…
I think there’s no free version except the educational one
The “makers” liscence is quite cheap though, 9$/month
There are still some options for like $40/year as well.
If I go to solidworks I will try to make any mounts and cases in Onshape free version. I have a call with onshape today. I looked into it deeper and The only thing I see I don’t like is the mating, it is exactly like Fusion and while it is faster it is not better. Solidworks let you mate like you are building (surfaces), fusion/onshape make you make like a digital file. For specific example I like to use planer and cylinder mounts for things like add on mounts with ever hole. If anything changes the mates will break and give a warning, with fusion they always break and it doesn’t like mating every hole. Sort of a self check if you will.
Price wise from what I see solidworks is the price of two years of onshape. SolidWorks will not shut off until it will not work on the computer anymore. onshape will not let you edit after the license expeires.
2 Likes
And with solidworks you would be paying for something you already know how to fluently use. If I’m not mistaken weren’t the LR2 and Burly/Primo designed in solidworks? if so how were you able to do it then but no longer have a license? is that a per year payment or a one time for solidworks?
I split a license with a coworker, at the time you got two log ons, or it was two for the price of one. It was a 2016 or 2018 version, for some reason it is no longer activated so I assume he changed something. I have no way to get a hold of him any longer, and that was sort of cheating anyway. I also switched computers a few times so I might have screwed that up.
Talked to Onshape…“substantial savings” is 20% of the first year then full price. Didn’t seem all that interested in me using the standard edition…“oh I have never discounted the standard, most people at least use pro…”. I HATE dealing with these sort of sales people. I think I am going to end up with SolidWorks again, I just need to bargin hunt. Then I have to deal with the VAR company they are the worst.
4 Likes
This is for the top mount, anything in the works to adjust bottom mount as well for more play?
1 Like
There’s been a design following this thread and Peter’s proposition of a dual cam adjust
You can use this: Printables
2 Likes
yeah i have this one, thats the top mount 
How about digging up this topic 8 months later?
Still pursuing this “cnc-cut flat face core” idea…
I just cut the face today and I must say it looks pretty good…
Easier print, flat packaging, and a blank canvas to any tool mount…
Maybe not optimized but it may be a nice tinkering platform
I need to take some measurements and see how I can mount the motor and endstop now…
4 Likes
Quick testing, although the bolts are a bit short with this super-thick face plate; it seems to slide nicely…
Bottom bracket has been modified and will need to be re-printed as the adjustment bolts face the wrong direction and are obstructed by the face plate…
Work of the day: I think this should do the trick for the motor
Endstop is not strictly necessary for testing, I’ll see that later ^^"
6 Likes
I love the idea and would cut it in aluminium, would make mounting my spindle a lot easier.
You just have to do all the work again after the LR4 has come out. 
The reason I did not make a vertical plate like this is the routers all have a bulb at the top. If you want to use a plate like this you will need a large cutout at the top or need to mount the router very far off the board.
The closer you get the router to the lower rail, the more rigid the CNC gets by a significant margin. 1/2 distance, twice the rigidity type of thing. 5mm to 10mm is a lot.
1 Like
I’ve been thinking some about what the “perfect” LR3-style design would look like and having a plate somewhere in the mix seems to have potential.
My problem is that the whole exercise is pointless unless I have the ability to measure, so I’m on a side quest (again) to establish a measurement methodology that’s not as inconvenient as my last one.