I do not know the internals of CC but I think the cut time is based on actual cutting and not on rapids or any plunging time. So the times may be accurate but misleading. Over time the CC gcode generated has gotten much better. In earlier 3.x versions the router moved all over the project and was constantly rising and plunging after making rapid moves. The v7 versions seem somewhat better but is still not optimized about cutting things right next to each other before moving to another area of the project. I like CC and have the Pro version but you get what you pay for. In the case of CC without pro you get it for free. The Vetric software is much more efficient in its cutting patterns but you have to pay big bucks for that functionality. This is a hobby for me so greatest efficiently of cutting is not a big deal for me. However if you are running production environment that inefficiency is more important to you. The same applies to Fusion 360. You pay for the engineering that goes behind the scenes to make cutting more efficient. For me again that gain in productivity is not worth it for what I am doing.
Appreciate the comments. Certainly, for sure, I love CCPRO. It is a lot of fun and seems to work well for things I’m looking to do.
I just posted this so, IF, there is an easy solution for it, it might get into some later version. Far it is from being any problem (except for the wife!).
Carbide Create / Carbide Create Pro Possible software updates
1 On the Model tab the Show 3D is not stable. No matter how you start in Job Setup (material) it mostly shows in cheery. If you change the material in Toolpath the Show3D will change but jumps back after building one component. Maybe add material pick button on the model page. Some 3D features are very hard to see in just cheery.
2 When building a component in Model shape it would be very useful to say in the show 3D view and change Parameters. Instead, it kicks you out of Show 3D and you have to go back into Show 3D to see how things changed. Some times it lets you stay in the Show 3D and make changes and you see the parameter change real time. This is nice. Seam to work the same if the model is closed out or not.
3 It would be nice to change out Shape parameter after the model is closed out.
4 If you cannot do #3 can you show the Shape parameters as greyed out (not Changeable) on model page when you go back to edit the Component Parameters. Its hard to remember what you set them too. My work around is to put them in the name, a lot of extra work.
5 Model import, import parameters, angle, Need to change rotate angle by more than +90 degrees. 0 to 360 or +180 to -180. 0 to 360 seams best. More intuitive. Or do both….
6 Ok fit the merge type Multiply, it deletes components very well but can not get it to do anything else. I have tried as have others. Yes I have the text as to what it does. No help. Just saying.
7 On design tab, Parameters, You can now change the number size by inputting ##MM, very nice add. Could you just put a MM box next to the Inch box so you can do and see both. I know one size needs to rule in the build are. Just a nice to have.
8 Same comment for Radius and diameter.
That’s a long term discussion we’ve been having internally. We’re looking to bump up the 3D capabilities but some changes we’d like to make conflict with one another so we’re trying to figure out what direction we’d like to go. If we can figure it out, it’s likely to be a V8 thing.
The best example, but not limited to this, if we make components draggable, rescalable, flippable, etc. then the parameters would be invalid if we make it possible to reopen the shape dialog because they’d all be scaled by the transformation applied during the drag.
We could make them more like toolpaths, where the 3D components are linked to the vectors that they’re based on. That would add a certainly amount of flexibility, but it makes it tough to duplicate the 3d component and move it around independently of the vector underneath. You may not want to warp and scale the source vector. (Or maybe that’s exactly what you’d expect)
What would be really valuable is to hear what people really want to make in 3D in CC. Not what they could make, maybe one day, or what they should be able to make (which leads the discussion into a more abstract direction) but what they’d make tomorrow if they had the tools to do so.
It’s very possible that we’re making everything more complicated than it should be. (That’s hard to believe, I know)
In today’s product, if I want to change the parameters, I have to delete the old model component and then add it back in with the changes. Why can’t CC do that exact thing under the covers? Select the vectors related to the original component, delete the original component, open the add component dialog and fill in all the original objects settings. Then the user is editing a new component, but it’s already got all the old component data…they change what they want to change and add in the new component. It would just need to be added in the same order as the original component.
Couldn’t that work? It’s not as pretty as modifying the component on the fly, but from an end-user perspective, it solves the problem of having to remember all the old component data.
That’s certainly a valid implementation, though, like all options it comes with constraints that may or may not be acceptable if we’re going to dig deeply into a newer workflow.
Just look at #4 so we can see the closed-out shape Parameter (greyed out) and above the Component parameters. That would be a big help
Any comments of the other suggestions.
Just tried #2, it now working like I asked in the comment. (Great work Ha) Go figure. some time work some times not. I will keep fiddling with it. Freaky
#1 seems like a bug. #5 should be doable. Work around is to rotate PNG before importing it. #6 just comment it out of the code. #7, 8 are nice to have
I happen to be working on this box this morning…I’m almost where I want to be - I just need to figure out how get the inside of the box up (where the modeling is) to come up to the inside of the contoured box, This might give you an idea of it.
So right now I’m trying to get the modeled portion to the height of the inside of the contoured portion…
EDIT:
My next step will be making the lid - which will be shaped like that box and have the underside lip to match (contours)…but will have a pillow-like top that slopes in the corners
I have to create a new base level, right? Right now I have a flat that sets it to a height…but I can’t edit that now…so I need to delete the old FLAT and then create a new one with EQUAL and the height of the contoured pocked…correct?
The stock is 2.5" and the pocket inside the lip is .5 down. So, I made the FLAT of the modeled portion 2" EQUAL…but it’s not lining up (as you can see).
The 3D Modeling of the interior section looks good:
Not sure if it will help, but I’ll send you the info/email that helped me tremendously with my 2" raised turtle back. Pics attached, but hard to show the “height” of the back which is nearly 2" edge to middle.
Also, learned the hard way that must have bits long enough to get both to the bottom of the cut and still remain far enough in the collet to stay tight. Just my two cents.
This is a minor annoyance but it annoys me every time I select Text. The list comes up and is mostly alphabetical but not always. I would like to be able to type in the name and the list move to that font. Not the biggest thing. The text has vastly improved by showing the actual font in the list when it used to just be a block font. That feature is nice but typing in your font instead of searching down a long list of fonts is annoying to me.
Beating a dead horse here again I’m sure, but after spending 3 hrs. on an 8 hr job only to have an issue and have to start the program again from the top I had to much time to think about how I use to use “break points” back in '02 (no not 2002, but back from there for sure!) Back when I programs in the top languages of Pascal, Fortran, Cobalt, and even Assembler, we use to set break points in our programs at various points so that we could restart large programs from a point closer to where it failed instead of having to restart from scratch.
I know, this has been beaten to death just about, but IF there was a way to set program breakpoints based on certain X,Y, Z positions at various stages, IF one had to stop the program for some reason and wanted to re-start, maybe there could be a way to move the router to a given X,Y,Z position or close to it and then ask the program to go back to the previous one or two breakpoints based on X.Y, and Z coordinates and start again.
Does that make any sense? IF it could be done it could save hours of re-run just to get back to a previous stop point.
(Please don’t laugh too hard at the suggestion. If nothing else, a little levity make for a better day.)
