If I’m using multiple AVC toolpaths with the same specifications (Tools, pocket clearing enabled, step-over) it would be great if I could manually ‘link’ these operations so they cut the pocketing together and then the V carving in common cutting sequences, without the need to swap tools back and forth.
I understand I could just select both elements to cut as part of the same tool path, but there are certain scenarios where it’s better to have them separate.
Thanks for considering.
Maybe use having them in the same group as the linking factor.
Maybe not restrict it to AVC paths. Say you have a V Carve and a couple of pockets that leverage the same clearing bit but need to be done at different times and you can’t arrange the paths to make sure the bits are in the right order.
Great additional specification!
I was sort of thinking within the same path group, but didn’t mention it. I think that makes sense and contains the processing somewhat.
Also started to include a request for a general ‘tool optimization’ which would arrange the common tools together in process for cutting, but felt that might be too big of an ask.
I do this manually now (include the tool size in my toolpath name) so it’s easy to identify and manually arrange them, but the Advance V-Carve (with clearing enabled) disrupts that somewhat.
And also provide a way to disable the behavior if necessary. The only manual control we have for paths is re-ordering toolpaths, there may be times when “do it the way I said” is needed.
100%
Manually link and unlink eligible toolpaths.
I think this would be cool, and it would be fun to work on, but realistically, we cannot do this without causing a massive support burden. Anything that isn’t explicit and clear leads to people emailing in for clarification. (Any by “clarification” I mean an accusation surrounded by, and including, a bunch of four letter words.)
Because of this limitation, we’ve been putting a lot of thought about how we move the software forward in directions that we think we should go, without causing massive disruptions to the existing customers that may not be ready for change. I don’t know where we’ll end up, but it’s a major theme for us in 2024.
Understand for sure (enhancements in line with overall strategy), make sense.
Thanks for considering though.
Also - sorry to hear about the types of “clarification” requests you all receive.
What about a way to disable the Vee Bit & only cut the clearing tool? We can disable the clearing tool now. So we create 2 AVC paths, one for clearing, one for V-bit, and we can order them however we want?
Maybe enhance AVC to include a form of rest machining?
That has been mentioned multiple times as it’s a capability in Vectric VCarve. But in CC the only solution would be to offset the vectors inward the distance of the slope and create additional paths to do that pocketing I think.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.