I think what you just described is Vectric Vcarve Desktop, except it is not fully integrated with Rhino. Instead it will read 2D dxf, dwg and other files, also 3D .3dm files exported from Rhino. It’s very well thought out and a delight to use. There is also Vcarve Pro and Aspire with even more capabilities.
(edited 3D .dxf to 3D .3dm)
This sound interesting. I applaud it not being subscription.
Will it be affordable to hobbyists?
Also, although it has not been updated in years. Pycam had a good start at rudimentary tool-path generation and bit selection. https://pycam.sourceforge.net/screenshots/
[Not for toolpaths, but for machine-running, yours-truly did a mock up for a new UI for LinuxCNC, some time ago, using the input from a lot of users, which one person in particular strongly objected to, for some reason.
(not monetized.)
I use VCarve Pro, and recently installed the FreeMill plugin - it’s by MecSoft, the RhinoCAM developer. But I think it only runs on Rhino for Windows.
Quick start video
I like it so far.
I found that VCarve is awkward to use for surfaces, as it requires that you import a surface, and a vector outline projected onto the surface. FreeMill runs as a plugin in Rhino, takes the surface and you go thru the CAM steps (part size, zeroes, tool info, stepover, etc.) It posts one program at a time, so you post the roughing, go back, change tool, feed/speed, stepover for finishing, then post a second program. VCarve sorts of bakes it all into one post with the options of combining tools in one program, or saving separate G-codes. If you don’t have ATC on your machine , it’s a moot point. I have a 3 axis manual tool change router, and a Sherline mill.
I had bought Cut2D years ago, and either FreeMill wasn’t available or I hadn’t heard about, then bought Rhino 7, VCarve Pro and got credit on Cut2D (both Vectric products). In each you own the software, not subscription. I would have probably just used FreeMill and not even bought VCarve Pro.
Before buying Rhino I was on the fence about Rhino and F360, but opted for a license I own (Rhino) rather than subscription (F360). I love it and really like the support on the forum.
Because there is no easy (for me) and cheap (I am no commercial user) to use Gcode program in Rhino V6, I use Estcam for 2.5D milling. I am very interested in such a program as plugin
RhinoCAM in my opinion is very user-friendly. About a decade ago l used to work on it for a while. I really liked its direct approach and the ability to copy, paste and rearrange the milling operations.
However, it had one major drawback. The 3d simulation with 5-10 operations on relativrly large objects (plugs for car body panels) often crashed due to quick filling of the system RAM, despite that the visual difference between the operations was minor.
–
I think that the filling features are very important:
Use curve regions to limit the milling operation. This should suport custom direction of the mulling path set in degrees.
Ability to import own 3d model of the CNC-machine to define the safe area, or simply for convenient decisions about which milling tools to use at certain steps.
Ability to do indexed miling with rotated milling head. Since this is targeted towards the hobbyists with mostly basic 3-axis CNC-routers, some operations require to manually rotate the milling head by 90 degrees or 45 degrees to reach areas that usually require 5-axis CNC-machines.
The errors around the A-pillar and some other areas were a result of bad G-code creation by RhinoCAM, but this photo pretty much explains the huge advantage of indexed CNC-milling done by a manually rotate milling head.
Ability to (copy and) mirror the G-code horizontally along the X, Y or Z-axis.
Ability to scale the G-code: 3d, 2d, 1d. The latter means that the carving could be scaled vertically to achieve a greater or smaller height of the stock material to create the same part with thicker or thinner material.
Ability to define a custom shape of the stock material. The user must be able to use different stock material 3d model for each operation.
Allow good settings for polygon-based and voxel-based 3d simulation. Fine finishing for the voxel-based simulation should use a refined (more detailed) setting than the initial roughing.
Yes, indeed, personally I am working on creating a CNC machine that have a drilling unit and a C-axis aggregate, which I do need to simulate the movement for.
Some of what you are looking for is planned for KaroroCAM, some is beyond the scope of:
Easy to use
3 Axis
Integrated
Cross Platform
On the Voxel-based 3D simulation, I’ve been doing some work here, but find even Dendro (which is not a cross platform solution) to break at any reasonable level of resolution.
3D simulation is a not a deal breaker for me in my own work flow so for now I’ve taken it off the dev list.
Being able to see the expected result after each operation is crucial for CNC-milling of mechanical and organic shapes (check my previous post, I added some examples). Of course, if your work mostly involves flat MDF parts and drilling of basic holes, having a simulation is not necessary.
I would rather have an accurate polygonal model for the simulation over voxel-based one. The former is much more realistic and significantly improves the CNC-milling time by reducing unnecessary operations in regions that are already smooth enough.
