I vote to keep gcode export in the free version. That way I can use the same program for Carbide and other machines.
People shouldn’t ask for support for free software, so just have a notice saying support is only for machine owners.
I will just use V6.
Continuing the discussion from Carbide Create V7 Beta:
I was looking for a suggested features thread (I thought I had seen one before), but I will put it here as a possible toolpath enhancement.
On the V-carve toolpath (and probably more important on the Advanced V-carve), the videos by Kevin (and I think Winston mentions this as well) they indicate running the toolpath twice to clean up after the V-bits. I was wondering if that could be included as an option when using v-carve. At least a perimeter clean up pass. This might be more useful in advanced Vcarve which also uses the pocketing cutter to reduce multiple tool changes. Could be as simple as a checkbox for a V–bit cleanup pass.
Two others occurred to me as I wrote the above.
The ability to automatically group like tools to minimize tools changes (or at least indicate number of tool changes, and tool reuse))
In Carbide Motion the ability to start mid program or turn off tool paths in the program without going out to Carbide create might be useful.
John
(Noob- I’ve had my Pro XL up and running about a week… so there may be an existing path I am unaware of)
Ok, the circle thing and then setting the path in the toolpath tab makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
That might be a very good idea. I’ll run it by them but I’d love feedback from others as well.
Related to that @edwardrford and I were discussing an option to flip the order of the pocket and V-carve so that you can help minimize changes in the middle of a program. (If that order matters for your particular program)
This is probably not something we’re looking at now because it would be easy to confuse people, particularly the new and less experienced users.
We’ve talked about it but the user interface gets ugly and error-prone. We might revisit that in the future and see if we’ve changed our minds.
Yes, please! 
Could also come in handy with soft plastics, and maybe even softer wood.
I’ll cast my vote for this feature.
Like this one too.
If you think about when this might be useful, perhaps the interface isn’t so clunky: Suppose there was an option to “remember this spot” upon “Pause”…so that you could restart from that spot, even if you Stopped the job or reinitialized. As long as the job stays loaded in CM, CM could remember that location and restart it, just as if it was Resuming. That would not require a sophisticated GCODE editor and would cover the case where you want to changes something while you’re running code and need to do a full stop.
You’re right, I did not separate the two ideas. Restarting a program is coming to CM, that was a big reason for all of the changes a few months ago.
Turning different toolpaths on and off in a C2D file from within CM will probably not, since that’s the part with the error prone UI.
Replying to yours as it’s the most recent, not singling you out.
Everyone seems to not like these changes, and I get it. However, I definitely get why they’re doing it. I have a Shapeoko because I was able to use CC with my 3018, and I quickly outgrew the first machine and needed to step up to the next level.
That said, they haven’t said this is to drive more revenue on the software side, but to stop the parasitic wastes of time on people who don’t want to pay them but are trying to get free support.
What else could be done to this end, without making the paid customers’ support system more complicated (such as verifying that they actually own a Shapeoko prior to engaging in actual support measures)? It doesn’t sound like they’re trying to trap anyone here, but rather free up their own time to help those that are actually paying customers. I can certainly empathize with this.
We hope to have an additional option for C3D machine owners before too long.
Sure, I meant to reply to rsilvers though. Seeing a lot of people not liking these changes, but I don’t see better ideas coming forth either.
My idea was to have the support page simply tell people that support is only for people who own the machines. No need to verify. 99% of people who see that will honor it.
Probably the truth is in the middle. They both want to reduce support cases and also they want to move more features to the Pro version. Let’s face it. The Pro version is significant money, so it needs to have a longer list of benefits.
I haven’t ran a CC generated v-carve in some time, so I may be confusing the behavior with the way F360 does it. But if CC behaves the way I think there are ways to optimize the second pass by going full depth in the pass instead of doing multiple stepdowns.
Yes, a clean-up pass can have essentially ‘unlimited’ depth-of-cut.
I have manually done this by duplicating a toolpath, then changing the DOC to some value larger than anything the toolpath actually cut. The problem with this approach is simply keeping the original and duplicate in sync as the project evolves.
If we implement this, we’d be OK with the first pass being slightly shallow (maybe .005") and then the second pass being at full depth. Would this be a benefit?
We would not make this a user definable value because of support problems, so it would have to be a fixed internal value (unless we put it in Pro, which I would not necessarily want to do). Would a fixed .005" finish pass be beneficial?
What you are describing here is more akin to to roughing and finishing passes that folks often do in F360. That would be pretty sexy as a general feature for contours, pockets, as well as the vcarve. However, you were just talking about axial stock to leave and the other toolpaths would require radial stock to leave….feature creep.
That is the one thing I appreciate about CC. I can do some of the interesting 2.5D things a fancier CAM program can do, albeit manually but also less abstractly. Roughing and finishing passes on contours and pockets: check. Helix entry for pockets: I can approximate. Adaptive clearing: I can approximate. Thread mill…maybe not. Ramp entry…that would be nice.
I personally haven’t left material for the final finishing pass, and it seems to come out well enough for my needs. I usually do a light sanding between the first and finishing pass (to push most of the fuzzies into the cut), and that combination leaves a clean cut for me.
One thing that would be useful that I forgot to mention is the ability to have the finish pass move faster. Perhaps a percentage speed over-ride (defaulting to 100% of the original, so the same speed) for the finish pass?
If you aren’t going to allow the user to adjust the amount of stock to leave on the first pass I would not take any additional stock on the second pass. I think just not having that particular aspect of this feature would cause less support problems that setting it to a fixed amount. If people are wanting to leave a little stock for a finishing pass, I would recommend they do 2 tool paths. That way it is something that requires a deliberate decision to do.
I’d really like to know how you are doing these in CC.
I agree the cleanup pass in Adv V-Carve is fine as a full depth Vee-bit only pass. Anything else can be achieved pretty easily with multiple operations.
Helix entry: small diameter circle (some amount slightly bigger than the bit) and a low depth per pass.
Adaptive is all about constant radial tool engagement so circular pockets with a deliberate step over.