I’m looking for any suggestions on how to create something like the attached image. A friend asked me to help create this Ninjago dragon head for him. I explained some of the difficulties of doing a full 3D carving, (the orange version) and created a simpler version that was just flat cuts. (I understand the corners will be based on the bit size).
But still, if I took each level, and made it a separate cut, I could create an interior cut to match the level above it, but that would leave the outer corners un-cut, so then I’d have to create separate clean-up paths to fix those.
I keep thinking there’s gotta be a better way, and possibly the better way is an .stl file, which I can create, but I run into problems with those too. (mostly my own struggles with getting any sort of accuracy with .stl file import and use.)
I’ll keep chipping away, just thought I’d ask for any other ideas I’m missing. Thanks!
Not entirely sure what this means, but each level should just consist of the outer rectangle and a section through the solid as an island in the middle of a pocket cut. So for the level marked with X, your geometry would look like the highlighted red curves. You’d have an extra interior pocket for the top levels with the nostril & eye.
Thanks for the suggestions, I’m still unsure. I can import the model as an stl… I just can’t seem to wrap my head around how stl’s are supposed to work. I import the model, in this case, the upper half, with a stock depth of .625. I set the model height to be the same, so it will have the full depth of cut, and it still squashes the file into the upper portion. I’m not adding base height, why does it choose to create the 3D with so much base depth?
Also, as for the dxf, that’s easy for me to create as well, but are you suggesting a dxf where each surface is it’s own connected edges? Right now, I can import a dxf, but it’ll require a bunch of clean up- organizing, joining and cutting edges to create the correct pockets…
The pocket idea… I’m not sure how that works unless I configure the model differently… I’m trying to create an example…
This is the result if I build up pocket cuts on different levels, I’m left with lots of un-cut corners… Of course this is from the base up, I could reverse and cut from the top down, which I think @Tod1d is your suggestion, and I can make that work, it just requires a massive reconfiguration of the model and importing a bunch of negative cut paths.
If that’s the way to do it, I appreciate the insight, I guess I was hoping there would be a more straight-forward way that I just didn’t know about… but, maybe not.
Thanks Michael, I get that in theory, I’m still unsure how this works in practice.
So maybe my question shifts to how I import (or should import) dxf files. Looking at the image of an imported dxf, that’s just bringing all the edges in one file, but I started breaking them into different imported files to preserve closed vectors.
Looking at those dragon edges, would you import each loop separately, or bring them in and manage/ break/ join them inside Carbide? I find, even with node editing tools, re-working dxf edges is tricky inside Carbide, but I could be just doing it wrong.
Also, anyone have insights into how to get consistency in stl import? I’ve tried it before, sometimes it seems to understand the file, as in this example, but for whatever reason, the depth of this dragon stl just does not seem to work.
What software are you using to create your model, and output the dxf or stl?
If you can cut a section through every level, those would be the vectors you need. Some will share the same curves, but each section should export as a separate closed vector. You may need to cut the section just a tiny bit above or below the edges. Each level is a union of that face, plus all of the faces above it.
As for the STL, what is the total height of the model? That should be the height you use when importing the stl. And the coordinate system when outputting the stl should be lower left bottom of the entire model, or a bounding box around the entire model. STL doesn’t like negative numbers. The whole model should be in the positive quadrant.
