Looks good to me as well, assuming your measurement and understanding of the hardware are accurate.
Some thoughts:
-
using the 1" grid was an excellent way to get the nice precise placement — you’ll want appropriately scaled clamps, which can reach across that up to 2" distance to match, possibly a set of them, or, do as @Luke did and make clamps which are more adjustable than my simplistic design: Nomad 883 threaded table and clamps
-
2" spacing is a reasonable compromise in terms of material strength and # of inserts — it also matches up well with typical stock dimension, so workable all around
-
the larger holes are for the mounting hardware? I’d consider putting them on odd grid marks, in-between a 2"x2" square of existing holes — that way you’re never wanting to clamp somewhere there isn’t a hole
-
while it’s fast and efficient for you to just select lots of geometry and tell the machine to make toolpaths, the software doesn’t take that into consideration, and will create inefficient toolpaths — for each separate bit of geometry in a toolpath, the system will
-
cut one layer
-
lift out
-
go to the next and repeat until the first layer has been cut in all the geometry, then it will repeat for the next layer — if you extract the plain text G-code there are post-processors which will fix this. Other alternatives include working up the code for one file, then using it and G92 (and a comm-control program which understands that) to do a step-and-repeat
Very conservative feeds and speeds — if they’ve proved out on a bit of scrap, you should be good.
To simulate a .egc file, you just:
- connect Carbide Motion to a machine
- get the plain text version per: http://carbide3d.com/carbidemotion/userguide/#load
- use your favourite simulator — list here: https://shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/G-Code_Utilities
Please let us know how it works out!