CamBam
News: *** FORUM BACK *** please see 'Latest News' for updates
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2018, 23:50:26 pm


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [48] inconsistent behavior with maxcrossover distance in pocket  (Read 315 times)
dh42
Administrator
CNC Jedi
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4958



View Profile WWW
« on: April 12, 2018, 03:15:25 am »

Hello

It's a bug report I have send to Andy by mail some months ago but I forgot to add it here (concerned: V0.98, V1.0 R14-1)


on the attached file, maxcrossover distance is set to 0.5 and stepover to 2 to see the problem more easily.

Sometime the tool return to clearance plane, sometime no.

on picture1, you can see that it's ok for the rectangle at the left side, but for the circle and the square, sometime the tool forgot to move to clearance.

also, on Cambam display, the Z moves to clearance (rapids) for adjacent paths are missing. (picture2)

The problem is solved on V1.0 R14

++
David


* Picture1.jpg (73.72 KB, 1024x485 - viewed 20 times.)

* picture2.png (32.72 KB, 1109x387 - viewed 20 times.)
* MaxCrossover_bug.cb (4.46 KB - downloaded 11 times.)
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 03:35:05 am by dh42 » Logged
Dragonfly
CNC Jedi
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1889



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2018, 09:18:43 am »

On circular shapes especially pocket tool path generation is affected even by the nature of the geometry object - a native circle or a circular polyline.
IMHO some of the weird results are due to the internal algorithm trying at any cost to do the final pass with the exact step over set in the MOP. Which results often in either an empty internal path or more than one pass with full tool engagement load. For that reason I, as well as many others, prefer a profile with cut width > TD. Works better. Judging by the way the trochoidal pocket MOP works it is not absolutely necessary the final step over to be exactly as defined. It should be treated as maximum allowable IMO.

Also, I personally don't like the alternating tool path order on consequent depth levels. They come as a (unpleasant) surprise after I've tried to set the best behavior on the first level.

Unfortunately we don't hear much from Andy and miss the feedback for our comments or suggestions. I am a great fan of CB and often jump to defend it from hasty criticism but this does not mean that a bilateral discussion is not necessary on issues which arise in real working conditions.
Logged

Before asking a question do some effort and walk through all menus and options in CamBam.  Maybe the answer is there. Please.
dh42
Administrator
CNC Jedi
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4958



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2018, 21:32:31 pm »

Hello,

Quote
IMHO some of the weird results are due to the internal algorithm trying at any cost to do the final pass with the exact step over set in the MOP.

I think that currently, the better way to avoid this problem is to do the job with a pocket and the Region Fill Style set to Outside Offsets or Inside Offsets instead of Inside+Outside Offsets , then use a profile mop to finish the inside or outside than remain to do.

++
David
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 21:34:44 pm by dh42 » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.

Copyright © 2018 HexRay Ltd. | Sitemap