First, let me say that I am a long time user of Lightburn on a CO2 laser and a fiber laser. I really appreciate what it can do and how it works. I also know the difference between 2d, 2.5d, 3d CNC. I have a CNC mill which runs with PathPilot and I develop on Fusion CAD/CAM. I also have a plasma table and tools for that.
What makes LB so special to me is that it starts as a blank page on which to create then progresses to the (sort of) CAM step of aligning your design on your stock, etc. In contrast, Millmage requires the CAM part of defining your stock upfront and wonât even let you launch the project unless you define your âprojectâ. It feels confronting and premature. Plus as I am setting up my machine, I have no project so that felt strange.
My wish would be that Millmage launches like Lightburn, showing the usable area of my router bed as a blank canvas. At that point then asking for stock definition would be ok but I would prefer to do the design on the blank bed and then lastly fit it to a stock which I would define. This is roughly how Fusion 360 and other CNC workflows progress.
I disagree with the premise that your project is defined by your stock. When I design in Fusion, I start in CAD, doing the design with the likely stock in mind but That doesnât come onto focus until the design is done or well along at least. Both the design and the stock have to fit the machineâs capabilities of course. I donât see a significant difference between how LB and MM workflows should be. I can tell you this with certainty. Both in Fusion and Solidworks, CAD comes first. CAM, including stock definition is second.I suppose in theory, I could start in CAM but I never have and canât imagine why I would.
This is because Fusion is not tightly integrated to the operation of your machine. When you start a project, do you design it, then hunt for a chunk of material to fit, then redesign to fit the material? You MUST have prior knowledge of the material and size before you can CAM the work, and should before you CAM it as well.
In MillMage, and Fusion, you [should] already know the endgame; that is you know what you intend to manufacture. Yes MillMage requires a change in youe usual procedures, but you gain 2 advantages: [1] You get a Lightburn-like development environment. [2] You get an All-in-1 package (** on a lot of controllers) where you get the job done without loading other software packages.
** I expect MillMage will gradually add other controllers like Lightburn did as time goes on. You have to admit this is a spanking new product and pretty amazing as a first release.
Rather than do a Template as @Mooseuk suggested, here is my solution (an empty project):
I disagree with your premise as well. Fusion is an âall-in-oneâ as well. You start in CAD and progress to CAM. You donât define your stock until you transition to CAM. Solidworks behaves that way as well. Fusion is also not tied to any particular piece of hardware either. I could in fact use it to drive my router table because it can and does output gcode, In my case for a Tormach mill. I may decide to do that if Millmage doesnât change to my liking. Of course I donât expect anyone to care about what I want. I am just offering a CAD/CAD experienced voice to the din. Take it or leave.
I do not use those other programs for my mill work. Prior to MillMage, I used Bridgeport Machines EZ-CAM software. Unfortunately, my copy was grandfathered at Windows XP.
Fantastic development environment or not, MillMage is not for everyone. We tend to stick with what is familiar to us, so use whatever is best for you. Nobody elses opinion is relevant.
By the way, Fusion does not control the machine. It generates GCode, meaning you need another program to send it.
