Adjusting a dovetail fit

I have gotten great results making dovetails in CC, and am able to construct a joint almost effortlessly now, after a few adjustments. But one thing that I struggle with is the need to make truly minuscule size adjustments to the pins. Tiny resizes to each pin can have a huge difference in whether the joint will close properly, but the only tools I can think of are to use an offset from the shape, which creates a new line, which I then need to adjust my tool path to accept as its origin.

What I would love to see is some way to tell the toolpath directly: really, this is a larger or smaller cutter diameter than I told you it was. The way that the tool library is set up, though, I would have to duplicate an existing cutter, redefine its settings, rename it, and remember which one did the adjustment larger or smaller. The existing contour toolpath has a “stock to leave” feature, which can make a small object larger, but I don’t think it allows negative values. Further, this only applies to contour, not pocketing operations, and when cutting pins, the stock is held vertically, and while a contour operation could cut their outsides, it would never finish the cheeks of the pin tenons.

Is there another way to think about this that could provide a repeatable way to adjust a fit like this? We are talking about tenths (or less) of a millimeter changes here, very much driven by the qualities of the wood in use and the scale of the joints.

I did dovetails by using a Curve to model the toolpath:

and aside from the inability to model undercuts, it should allow quite find adjustments.

If you are still stuck, please upload a file and photos showing the difficulties you are having and we will look into this with you.

1 Like

Thanks for the speedy reply! My technique starts by drawing the profile of one tail, so a simple keystone shape. I draw a rectangle, move into the node editing mode, and then shift two corners inward by the same number of grid intersections.

By step-and-repeating that shape I get a collection of tails. I can make them asymmetrical, add space for a box lid to be sawn away, etc. I group them, then do a boolean operation on a board-profile-shaped rectangle, and I have a matching set of pins, which I cut vertically with a pocketing operation.

Because these remain individual keystone-shaped objects, I can make fine adjustments to them with the scale tool (say to adjust for a slight difference in stock thickness) without having to move dozens of individual points. But I can’t easily–and minutely–change the heaviness of the cut around their perimeter.

If this were Illustrator, I could adjust the stroke width to get this effect. That would be non-destructive of the underlying geometry, and be a local effect rather than a global one.

I still think that the custom tool (lying to the program about the actual cutter dimensions) is probably the route I will need to take, but it would be excellent if there was a field in the Edit Tool dialog to override the tool library’s global cutter diameter parameter. That adjustment would stay local to that particular toolpath, so that I could use the same literal tool in another toolpath without those amendments, and I also would not have to wait through a “tool change” that did not involve any sort of actual cutter replacement…

Having a hard time visualizing what you are describing.

For my part, I usually end up doing 3D visualizations in BlockSCAD or OpenSCAD or PythonSCAD and have even been working on a tool for this:

1 Like

This is the tails. I use an 1/8 cutter, and a safety-sided triangular file to clean out the corners. These are cut with a pocketing operation, because tabs in here would be a mess.

Then the pins are made by taking a set of tails, drawing a rectangle around them, and a boolean operation makes the inverse set of outlines:


And those get cut in a vertically-oriented setup in another pocketing operation.

So both the tails and the pins are based on pockets, and because of the way I use them, I can’t use the one adjustment provided there: stock to leave.

By the way, this was the first time I got to use my new pendant, and WOW. Setting the coordinates for the pins cut was so much easier than previous efforts in this area. I loaded up a very skinny engraving bit, took off my glasses to engage my built-in 8x magnifier, and moved one tiny step at a time to find the corner of the stock in my 90° jig.

My test cut mostly gave rise to this question, but also clued me in to the lack of quality of plywood I was using. It looked like baltic birch, but clearly wasn’t… I hope to get things dialed in better this time, and hopefully I won’t need this adjustment after all. But if you’re thinking about it, imagine if one (or both) of these things were options:


In the first, a local override of the tool diameter would allow you to cut larger or smaller than the path by telling CC the wrong diameter.

In the second, you could shift the outline in (like regular stock to leave in an outline cut) or with a negative number, out.

This may just be too nerdy for words, but hey, it involves computers…

Thanks again for all your attempts to help so far!

Photo of how the cuts turn out?

That sort of difficulty is why I just directly model the toolpath movement.

If I could figure out a way to do that, I am sure I would like it as well. But this time, I changed too many things at once (bad science, I know) and it all worked out perfectly.

Actual BB grade baltic birch, and most importantly, a much more fanatical job of setting the xyx at the corner of my upright panel jig.

I think what happened the first time (in addition to the funky wood) was that my zero point was too far toward me. Cutting a wedge shape like this makes that also adjust the width of the pins, and the joint is quite sensitive to those changes.

Glue is drying now, everything fit together perfectly.

Here’s some shots of an earlier project using this technique:

That’s 6mm Sapele (rescued from the dumpsters at Martin Guitars by my best friend’s husband). Those were cut with a very very tiny spiral end mill. I forget, maybe 1mm or smaller. I had to double-stick tape the wood to a flattened MDF platen – there was no room for errors!

You can see more about that project here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5DSOq9PBc

Scroll ahead to 3:27 if you want to skip over the axe head cover part…

4 Likes

So not an actual dovetail tool?

How are you doing the undercut?

As I noted in the above link, I just draw up the cut in profile, draw up circles to represent the tool diameter based on the profile and the given depth/height which I wish to work with, and connect the dots.

Alternately, perhaps do a full-blind fingerjoint?

1 Like

No, I don’t use an angled cutter for the tails. I just cut them laying flat with a thin cutter. I used 1/8” for the current project, and a quick pass with a triangular file to open up the radius that it left. For that toolbox, I used a 1/16” spiral end mill, which left such a tiny radius that I could nick the inside corners with a Kiridashi, and whack it together with a hammer.

This is how my current project turned out.

1 Like

Finished project.

These are a pair of winches that will be wound with 100mm nylon webbing, to lift a lighting rig. 12-volt worm-drive motors power it up and down. The central hub is a 20mm OD / 12mm ID tubing, and 2mm plates as end flanges. Those were cut as an interference fit and hammered on. The holes in the flange are just to provide access for the motor mount screws, although I love the vintage reel-to-reel aesthetic!

This was my second time cutting aluminum on the S4, first time with an O-profile bit. I can see why those are preferred!

2 Likes

Walter, what a piece! Thanks for sharing!

2 Likes