We just posted Carbide Create 856 to the beta page. It includes:
(PRO) Engraving toolpaths can now be projected onto the 3D model.
(FIX) Fixed DXF import code to allow degree-4 splines.
(FIX) Fixed specific customer DXF with nonstandard spline/know parameters.
(FIX) Fixed an edge case where a 3D model may not reload correctly.
(INTERNAL) Removed third-party logging and formatting libraries.
For the projected engraving:
The start depth plus the cutting depth is the “maximum depth” the cutter will plunge.
When projecting the toolpath to the 3D model, it will cut into the model by a maximum of the defined cutting depth
If this goes well, we plan to add this option to other toolpaths, but this is the simplest case to reason about, so we’re starting here first. (Multiple cutting depths in contour/pocket, and V-carving take on a new meaning when projected, so those are not good starting points.)
I can see the difference in the toolpath - but the time seems to be the same. Is there a description of what “Parallel Pockets” are and when they are beneficial? I did a search on the community and only see this post mentioning them…
@GJM Looking at it quickly on a project I have open, it looks like “parallel” keeps the bit going in the same direction instead of circling out from things. So if you look at this you can see how there are toolmarks radiating out from the 3d section in the middle as well as ones going lengthwise. Both of those are from the same pocketing operation and setting it to “parallel” would eliminate the ones that are following the curves of the center design.
So the benefit wouldn’t be time but cleaning up tool marks from the milling process.
People have been asking for this as a way to cut with the grain of the stock. I don’t know if it’s useful, but we already had the code, so it was a relatively easy feature.
Tried projected engrave in 858. It was stuck on 20.1% for about 5 minutes.
Turns out it was done, it just didn’t update the % until I hovered my cursor on it. (chronic issue with other paths as well.)
What do I use if I just want the entire text engraved at 0.010" into the 3D surface?
OK, looks like Start Depth 0.500" and Max Depth 0.010" does what I want.
So the Start Depth is now a lower limit plane? Meaning I need to know the lowest depth of my path, or just set it to ‘t’?
This is counterintuitive, and not consistent with the rest of the dialogs.
What if I want to cut a pocket on the 3D surface, and then engrave the bottom of that pocket?
I would think, if it’s a 1/8" pocket, I would set the start depth to 0.125, and max depth to 0.135 to cut the same 0.010" engraving.
Shouldn’t “Project to 3D Model” just replace the top surface with the 3D surface?
I’m trying to think of other use cases here, using the other toolpath types as well… ???
[edit]
Hmmmm, trying to see if setting DOC to something smaller than Max Depth resulted in multiple passes. It locks the 2 values, you can’t set them different???
There’s no intuitive way to set depths without limiting flexibility.
Here’s a more thorough description of the intent: (And this presumes there are no bugs in the current implementation, so this is the intent only)
To be pedantic, the two parameters are Start Depth and Cut Depth, not Max Depth.
In all cases, the maximum cutting depth is the Start Depth plus the Cut Depth. That’s the same in the 2D and 3D cases.
When projection is enabled, if the model is higher than the toolpath, then the model can “push” the toolpath up. If this happens, the toolpath can cut up to “Cut Depth” into the model.
If the model is beneath the toolpath, nothing will happen.
If you just wanted to project into the whole model, the best thing would probably be to make the Start Depth equal to “T”, or the stock thickness directly.
While not perfect, this does keep the semantics of 2D and 3D similar- both create a toolpath at the same depth; one just allows the model to push it back up.
Personally, I don’t care about the flexibility argument. If this were for me as a user, I’d always just internally set the Start Depth to the stock thickness when projection is enabled. But it’s not for me, and this is closer to the way other systems have implemented projection, so we’re starting here. (Good or bad, I don’t know)
OK. I was locked into imagining the toolpath being projected DOWN onto the 3D model.
Or, as I mentioned, the 3D model being treated as the top of stock.
Rather than the 3D model pushing the path UP.
It seems odd to set Start Depth greater than Max Depth, or Cut Depth??
Weird behavior if the model is higher than the stock thickness. But we shouldn’t be doing that anyways. At least I can’t think of a reason to do that. But I tested it anyways
OK, to cut a pocket with engraving in the pocket, either model the pocket into the 3D,
or cut the depth of the pocket, and then add the depth of the engraving to the pocket depth
Still pondering the reason for using Start Depth as a lower limit plane???
Is there a use case where this is applicable? Would it make sense to label it “Max Depth”?
Or would that confuse the issue further?
I think the recent “Ways to add an emblem to a wavy flag” topic might be a good use case to try this out. I’ll give that a shot later.
The model is clipped at the top of the stock. (As I write that, I’m not sure it’s correct, but I will state it with absolute conviction anyway.)
The plan is to add projection for pocket toolpaths too, but if you think this discussion is annoying, consider a case with multiple stepdowns getting pushed up so they overlap and get recut. I’m not ready for the arguments, so we started with engraving.
It keeps the 2D and 3D cases identical in terms of max depth (Start Depth plus Cut Depth).
The original idea of the “Start Depth” for 2D was to separate the plane you’re engraving on from the cutting depth into that plane, without having to do mental math. When you think about it that way, it makes sense to disable Start Depth for projected toolpaths.
Both are valid options, but:
If we change projection to disable the start depth, then it’s gone for good. We don’t want to spend time going back and forth.
We can only do one and we won’t add additional fields like an explicit Max Depth later. (We get tons of requests for “one more field/option,” and if we added them all, the program would be unusable)
I have a strong opinion on this one, but it doesn’t really matter; Carbide Create is for the people here, not for me. So share your opinion, and we’ll see if it needs to change.
OK, then just Cut Depth. I was unaware that it worked this way in the engrave path all along.
Stick to your guns!
But it doesn’t. In the 2D case, if I had previously cut a 1/4" pocket I would set start depth to 0.25" and my cut depth to the desired depth for my engrave. Say 0.010" (Max Depth: 0.260")
In the 3D case, If I cut a 1/4" deep engrave, and then want to engrave into that resulting surface, I have to set the Start depth greater than the lowest point I will encounter (say 0.500"), then set the Cut depth to my previous depth + the new engrave depth (0.260"), Max Depth: 0.760".
Again, I get how to set it now to get what I want. But it’s a paradigm shift. i.e. when using Project to 3D Surface, it means something different.
There’s real possibility that my opinion needs to change
I’m well aware that I’m experiencing tunnel vision having a single point of view, and long term but limited (to several CAD/CAM solutions) exposure.
I would argue that it does, depending on what meaning you assign to the word “Projection” (and my definition of the word might be too loose). In NX, there might be the concept of a Check Surface, and that might be closer to what we currently have.
Let’s phrase the question differently:
Does everyone expect the projected toolpath to cut into the model by the defined Cut Depth distance, regardless of the Start Depth value? (Which makes that value irrelevant, and it should be disabled)
In Vectric the 2d path is projected onto the 3D model and cuts “Cut Depth” regardless of where it is. So you get a consistent depth of cut across the full curvature of the surface.
I am not really sure what Inset Start Depth to in those cases. I think it assume 0 is the 3D surface.
I think the nerds scared off the normies (or it was just me who did it).
I get the impression that most people would prefer to disable the start depth if the projection is enabled, so we’ll make that change. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
