I worked up a basic tutorial on this sort of thing at:
This would be similar, and a good chance to show the pen tool in CC400 ---- hang on and we’ll do a quick tutorial.
I guess my question was more of "can I make this 3d’ish. I was wondering if rather than just straight cutting a pocket around them could i make the side ramp up to give it more dimension.
Start by setting the stock size to something reasonable:
Edit the Document Background to import the heart image:
Then switch to the Design tab, and select the Curve tool and begin drawing.
Start with “Snap to grid” turned on so that you can be sure of starting/stopping on the same point and closing the path properly:
Turn “Snap to grid” off and then go into curve edit mode and adjust the curves as needed — note that you will need to toggle off smooth even on some points you would expect to be smooth so as to have asymmetric length off-curve nodes:
duplicate and move/rotate/scale to make a second:
Then offset paths inside and outside as desired:
Presumably one wants the hearts interlinked, so there should be an appearance of say over the larger heart by the small one at the top and under the large heart at the bottom — this will require a bit of Boolean logic.
To go over with the small heart at its top we will need to cut off the larger heart with the path of the smaller one.
Start by duplicating the inside and outside of the small heart:
and drag them back into alignment with the originals and draw in a circle which defines the intersection which we wish to work with:
Select the circle and the outermost heart and do Boolean intersection:
resulting in:
and shift click on the inner heart so that the latter has a dashed appearance and do "Boolean subtraction:
resulting in:
The Boolean subtract the intersection area from the larger heart:
resulting in:
Then select the punched out heart and the inner heart:
and do Boolean Subtract:
Repeat in opposite for the other intersection.
Once one has:
As a shortcut, import this SVG:
or this .c2d:
interlocking-hearts.c2d (676.7 KB)
One should be able to do 3D modeling to make the overlapping more obvious.
In order to have an angle though one will need to have rectangles which are much larger for each of the hearts:
Switch to the 3D model tab, assign limited height angles to each rectangle of a suitable height, and then intersect those with each heart.
Angled rectangle:
limiting it to the heart:
Add the remaining heart:
Probably there’s a better way to do this, but this should at least get one started.
@WillAdams excuse me if I am missing something here, but don’t you need a base that should be pocketed to allow the hearts to be raised? I believe the OP was asking for raised hearts out of a sign and that the hearts have a more rounded edge instead of just getting a 2D pocket look. How do you get rounded raised edges on the hearts on a sign? How does the 3D Finish work with this?
Yes, you could start with a flat base as part of the 3D model if desired — you could just cut around this.
Rounding the edges would detract from the height difference of the heart parts I was striving for — lots of other ways to do this though.
Well I guess that is what I am not following with your example. Your design shows no reference to the part that the hearts must be cut from so what would your toolpaths be for your design? And if you try rounded edges like the OP hinted at (something more than what you get from a simple pocket cut) is it the 3D finish toolpath that does this?
based on what you describe, I think you want something like this:
I only figured out yesterday how to do this so bear with me;
first you do a normal 2 1/2 set of toolpaths as you normally would, but you need enough depth of the cuts to have space to make it nice and round; I did not do enough of this and the letters ended up a bit more flat than I wanted in the picture.
as part of this I assume you have a box or other bounding graphic element in the Design view.
so after you have the design and 2 1/2D tool paths, the 3D portion comes in
step 1 of this is in the Model screen, where you need to select your bounding graphic element/box.
and then click on the left-most icon, the square/circle combo thingy.
in the first step you pick a “flat” “add” thing, and you need to set the height to the height at which you want the rounding of the text/graphic to start ** measured from the bottom of the stock ** !!!
this defines the floor for the rounded shapes, and you’re not going actually cut this but it needs to be there for the modeling to work
in step 2, you select the text/graphic you want to round, and again use the square/circle tool thing,
but now you pick a “Round” shape. The height you need to set to how much Z you have left to the top, and you can decide to flatten whatever excess you have via “Height limit” by setting it to limit (recommended) or you set it to scale, and then it sort of deflates the air out of the shape until it fits.
now step 3 is in the toolpath view, where you again select the text/graphic you want to round. do not select the bounding box.
and then you pick 3D finish… the only real choice is what bit you want to use and the angle.
in the picture above I used a 2mm flat bit (with slightly reduced-from-default stepover) that I ran in 2 separate 3D finish pases at 0 and 90 degrees.
and that’s it.
2 Likes
I’ve uploaded a C2D file that you get if you follow the steps above, hopefully that makes it more clear than words alone
the C2D file has 2 layers of text where the top layer of text is rounded. I’ve used a 12" x 3.5" x 1/4" stock that’s very popular on ebay as base
CCPRO-rounded-letters.c2d (1.3 MB)
1 Like
Thanks, the c2d file helps a lot. Much appreciated.
What does the angle parameter actually do in the 3D Finish toolpath? does it somehow affect the final finish? Is it related to some sort of roughing pass? Is this actually controlling the shape of what you are milling?
And sorry for so many questions, but when in the Model Tab, do you know what is the difference between the height parameter in the Shape Parameters versus the height parameter in the Component Parameters?
so a 0 degree angle makes the bit go from left to right and back as part of the 3d shaping; a 90 degree makes it go in the Y direction; 45 degree… well diagonal.
the second finishing pass is depending only on how detailed you want it to be; I used a straight bit not a ballnose so doing 2 passes at 90 degree gets rid of a few ridges
so the height in the shape box is the height of the actual rounding you want; the height in the bottom half screen is basically an additional offset for the start of where to do the rounding
1 Like
ahhh… ok the angle parameter makes sense now. Thanks.
ok I follow with the heights. appreciate it.
I wish CC had tooltips on the adjustable parameters that would pop up when hovered over.
@fenrus Well done working this out!
I am missing something though - I cannot see how this can work when it is actually cut out.
If you cut “Layer 1 2d pocket” (Your Name) first then it removes all the stock that should be under the bits of “Here” that do not intersect with letters in Your Name to a depth of 0.1" - so there is now nothing left of those parts to “round over” in 3D if followed by “Layer 2 2D pocket”
If you cut “Layer 2 2d pocket” (Here) first then it removes all the stock that should become the rounded bits of “Your Name” that do not intersect with letters in HERE to a depth of 0.2"
However the Simulation renders it perfectly as it is desired… which also puzzles me if what I say above is correct. Perhaps the 3D modelling toolpath generation is sophisticated enough to work this all out in the background - in which case it is really non-intuitive to me!
Have I simply got this wrong - or is there an additional boolean operation(s) needed between Layer 1 and Layer 2 and then that is used for the actual cutting toolpath which is then followed by your two finishing paths and then Cutout ?
What am I missing here?
suggestion: disable all toolpaths but the first, look at the simulation
then reenable one layer at a time and see it being built
I’m happy to explain but do not exactly understand your concern yet
also remember this is subtractive, so each toolpath removes a little more towards the end result