Why am I getting these “dogbone” corners in this inlay attempt? Other practice runs did not have this. File attached, using the bits in the file. This for an inlay on a guitar neck.
Also: even though is it set up with the 1/8" end mill, the cut doesn’t use it, even though the degign is just over .125" wide.
The attached picture is the very first attempt at an inlay and it was perfect. Every other practice run has been different and not perfect. The bit is correct, unless the library has incorrect information. This is getting frustrating. The discrepancies in the software simulation is puzzling too.
The board is flat. It was milled on the jointer before I started the cut.
Typical reasons an attempt at cutting will be different from the 3D preview:
using wrong tooling
zero position not set accurately to match the origin in the file
measured stock thickness does not match actual stock thickness
machine misconfiguration — wrong type of Z-axis specified
mechanical interference
wrong feeds and speeds resulting in lost steps (esp. in this case plunge rate)
electrical issue
datum or other setting in the file resulting in an attempt to move beyond the machine bounds and lost steps
The great thing about CNC is that given a properly prepared file, a machine setup which matches the file, and nothing going wrong in the cutting, a part will be made correctly.
The awful thing about CNC is that a part will only be made correctly if the file is prepared properly, the machine set up to match the file, and nothing goes wrong in the cutting.
How did you secure your stock? Set zero relative to it? Manage all tool changes?
On my simulation of your file, the depth of cut is not 0.160 as defined (it seems to be cutting only ~0.06 inch deep). This goes away and the depth of cut reaches 0.160 inch ( and the inside corners become sharp) when I select my own 30 degree v bit. I suspect this is due to an oddly defined 30 degree bit in your library or this is a software artifact when I download a file with a custom bit not defined in my library. If the former is the issue, it may be corrected by redefining the bit, if the latter is the issue, I am of no help.
Edit: I have not reproduced dogbones in a v carve by too shallow of a cut. I can reproduce dogbones by using a bit of a smaller angle than what the toolpath was made for ( ie , use a 30 degree bit when the tool path was made for a 60).
Does your simulation look the same as the one Michael posted? If not, please post a pic of yours. Also post the 30 degree tool geometry (found in the Tool Database).
I am finding this very odd. When I download and open the file in CC757, the simulation does not match the tool path. The simulation is too shallow. If I replace the v tool with my own tool, the simulation matches the toolpath. I can fiddle with tool geometries, but I am still unable to force the simulation to not match the toolpath (the behavior of the file as downloaded). Is anyone else seeing this? I feel like I am missing something obvious. Here is my file where I have added a small rectangle, the toolpath generated for the small rectangle for my 30 degree bit. 0 ECM F Inlay TEM_bozod.c2d (56 KB)
On the simulation screen, it would seem to get hung up to the point that it didn’t show one of the vectors and I just closed the animation. It would also not load the simulation on the previous version that I was using, I thought it was the computer and not the file so I didn’t think to try another one. When I saved the male inlay in the new CC version I ran the simulation and it ran fine.
I wonder if it’s something with the actual vector file that’s causing this issue?
Nope, but it defaults to the fastest setting, so it should be pretty close to the old simulation where you had to wait for it to generate. Just now you can see it.
Will, I can not tell for sure on this phone and the angle of the simulation on your version but it looks like the inside corners are round. That does not seem right.
Here’s a picture I went back and found from the first/“perfect” one. Even the corners are rounded on that one. Once glued and sanded, it appears to disappear. Maybe I’m being too picky or expecting too much, but I feel the machine and 30v bit should be crisper in a corner.
Will,
Here is a png of the simulation with my 30 degree v on CC757: Note the increase in width of the carve, the increase in depth, and the sharp inside corners compared to yours with CC774 . Other than selecting my bit, I did not modify the downloaded file.
And here is an image of the original downloaded file’s toolpath only (no simulation). This tool path is identical to the path generated with my 30 degree v bit.
The original posted file with the original tool behaves as if the toolpath is just raised up by 0.100 inches above the surface of the stock. The depth of cut can be approximated by incrementally reducing the thickness of the stock /viewing the simulation until cut through occurs.
I have checked the two resulting Gcode files and they are identical except feedrate (when DOC for my bit is updated to 0.005). The difference seen in the simulations only exists in the simulations. The original post and the file with my 30 degree bit will cut exactly the same.
Dogbones and rounded inside corners will result when the true bit angle is less than the angle of the bit defined in CC. Rounded inside corners ( but no dogbones) will occur when zero is set above the stock. See the next pic. All toolpaths were for a 60 degree v bit defined in CC.