It took me 8 weeks to get things to the point I was ready to make a cut but I finally accomplished it. I’m pretty pleased with my first attempt. Now I just hope I don’t break anything now that I’m past the 60 you break it period.
29 Likes
Your first cut looks better than my last cut, great job.
Looking forward to seeing what else you can do with that machine 
7 Likes
Beautiful work ! I think we have another over achiever.
2 Likes
The Shapeoko machines are pretty robust. Like any electronics things do break but C3D did a pretty good job at building a robust machine.
To old to be an over achiever, I’m more of a glad I woke up person. 
1 Like
Every day we see the grass from above is a good day. 
Beautiful work!
2 Likes
That was a rather ambitious first cut but it really paid off well.
I have ADHD and end up hyperfocusing on some things. This just happened to be the target of my wacked out brain at this point in time. Actually, I was surprised at how easy it was once I got past the error(?) in the CIC tool library. That messed with me for a few hours.
Great work. Can’t beat maple (?) in walnut. Took lots of us more than one cut to accomplish that.
2 Likes
Thanks, when I work on the actual piece I want to use yellow heart.
I bought some yellow heart, but it was for the great university to the north of you in Minnesota.
1 Like
Nice job, Go Hawks! Please tell me what wood you used to get that effect of the light wood showing with the darker wood on top?
Could you elaborate on that error?
I had to change the corner radius on the V bits from CIC to zero. This was for the Carbide Create library, I don’t know about any of the other softwares, so please don’t take what I say as across the board.
That is because Carbide Create does not support that specific geometry, c.f., our #501 and 502.
I had to go with what I had at the time.
I do have a question on that. If Carbide Create doesn’t support that geometry why is it included as a part of the data set on their bits? I’m just trying to understand, I’m a little slow.
I believe this was an instance of future-proofing — Carbide Create has grown quite organically in terms of features and capabilities, but tooling geometry is a well-known and understood quantity, so having an unused parameter is a better arrangement than needing to change the tool format at a later date when support is added.
That all makes sense, but then, why, if the parameter is unused, would changing it affect the cut?